Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offer and acceptance

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

BENRONA HOLDINGS LTD及另一人對張志超

Citation

[2026] HKDC 814
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2520/2023

Defendant became a trespasser from 16 March 2023 for remaining in the premises after expiry of the tenancy; mesne profits are payable at the contractual rent of HK$18,500 per month from 16 March 2023; plaintiffs did not accept a binding extension to 15 December 2023 and any purported partial acceptance in the 12/5/2023 correspondence does not create a binding agreement; deposit refundable only upon delivery of vacant possession and full payment, which conditions are unmet; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiffs on party-and-party basis.
3 Feb 2026

IP NGA SIN v. CHEUNG SIU SO

Citation

[2026] HKCA 126
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV269/2022

The April 2020 letter, properly construed in its litigation context and against the defendant's prior March offer and known facts (including the value of the Flat), was ambiguous and did not constitute an unconditional surrender of the plaintiff's proprietary claim; the defendant's purported acceptance did not produce meeting of minds (ad idem) and no binding settlement agreement was formed, so the strike-out order was wrong and the defendant's strike-out summons must be dismissed; costs were apportioned as set out by the court.
7 Jul 2025

吳澤源對劉建華

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 35
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD551/2025

The Tribunal found no concluded renewal: the tenant's request for a rent-free week was a counter-offer that terminated the landlord's earlier proposal, subsequent communications were ambiguous or silent and did not amount to acceptance, therefore the fixed-term tenancy expired on 5 February 2025 and the landlord validly notified repossession; the respondent's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success so leave was refused and no stay granted.
25 Apr 2025

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. TARJOTO HERU HIDAJAT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1190/2024

On the facts and contractual matrix the Court found no identifiable legal defence by the Defendants to the Bank's claim; communications and drafts in 2023 did not create a triable issue sufficient to resist summary disposal and the declaration signed by the Defendants supported the Bank's case, therefore summary judgment in favour of the Bank was appropriate.
12 Apr 2024

CHEN PUI CHI AND ANOTHER v. CAI YIFEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1096/2018

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a concluded agreement existed to pay 1.68% per month; exchanges constituted offers, counter‑offers or negotiations and any offer had lapsed or been rejected; court therefore exercised s48 HCO discretion to award conventional pre‑judgment interest at USD prime+1% over the same accrual periods; total pre‑judgment interest awarded USD 21,013.04 and post‑judgment interest under s49 HCO from judgment date until payment.
21 Jun 2023

RE R.E. DAVER & CO LTD (In Liquidation)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1657
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW23/2021

The application was dismissed because (1) the alleged purchaser correspondence was repeatedly marked "subject to contract"/"without prejudice," and there were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the ordinary effect of those words so no binding agreement was formed; and (2) the Property was owned by DCK, not the Company, so there were no questions relating to the assets of the Company engaging Schedule 25 Part 1 para 3(a)(ii) and s199.
6 Jan 2023

WONG LAI PING v. YOUTH WORLD FOUNDATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 42
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC281/2021

The sanctioned offer in the Second Offer Letter objectively and on its face contained a clear and obvious mistake—the offered sum was calculated net of advance payments and intended to be on top of periodical payments; the respondent either had actual knowledge of that mistake or unreasonably attempted to exploit it by treating its 11/4/22 letter as an acceptance; the summons was totally unmeritorious and the respondent's conduct was unreasonable; accordingly respondent must pay applicant's costs of the summons on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel and the costs are to be summari…
6 Dec 2022

七月有限公司對 PERFECTLAB CREATIONS LTD及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1805
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP97/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were principally factual attacks on the trial judge’s credibility findings which an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb, the new or expanded grounds were not adequately explained or previously raised as required by practice directions, and the mitigation defence lacked pleaded particulars; therefore the appellants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under the statutory test.
12 Jan 2022

DEMY ENGINEERING LTD v. SAU SAN TONG MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 31
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4094/2018

The 29.10.2020 fax could not be treated as a valid offer because it was ambiguous and objectively a unilateral mistake as to recipient and terms; the defendant/C&A effectively revoked any supposed offer by the contemporaneous telephone communication which was communicated to the plaintiff through an authorized channel (SWW's general line answered by ST Li); accordingly the 2.11.2020 letter was not an effective acceptance and no binding settlement was formed, so the stay application fails.
21 Jul 2021

桂洪地產有限公司對李清奇

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 53
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD818/2021

The lease had expired on 30 April 2021; applicant validly recovered vacant possession; respondent produced no evidence of acceptance of the alleged HK$800 proposal; WhatsApp evidence supported applicant's account; there was no error of law in the tribunal's decision and no reasonable prospect of success on appeal, so leave to appeal was refused.