Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral variation

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2015

LIN MAN YUAN v. KIN MING HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIN MAN YUAN v. KIN MING HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA216/2008

On the balance of probabilities the Court found no oral revival term and no variation had been proved; the Written Contract unambiguously related to Lot A4 only, and the subsequent land exchange by the Xiamen Government removed the contract's subject matter so the main claim failed; there was no fiduciary duty in the circumstances and no breach. Separately, the Court found agents retained by or linked to Madam Lin and Mr Huang intimidated and harassed Mr Kho, awarding him damages and injunctive relief (HK$450,000 and a permanent injunction to be settled), but dismissed Kin Ming's corporate co…
30 Jan 2008

DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (A FIRM) v. FORTUNE PHARMACAL CO LTD

Citation

DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (A FIRM) v. FORTUNE PHARMACAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1326/2007

The FCS, read as a whole and in its commercial context, unambiguously constituted a written variation to the engagement letter fixing the contingency fee by reference to the difference between HK$50,000,000 and the tax and penalty imposed; any alleged oral variation was invalidated by the engagement letter's Clause 10 requiring written amendments, therefore the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the contingency fee and the appeal was dismissed.
15 Aug 2006

YIK FAI TARADING LTD v. UNICHEM ENTERPRISES CO LTD

Citation

YIK FAI TARADING LTD v. UNICHEM ENTERPRISES CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2231/2006

The defendant's unparticularised allegation that the goods were unmerchantable, unsupported by evidence or particulars and contradicted by its own fax seeking time to pay, did not raise a triable issue; accordingly Order 14 summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.
25 May 2005

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING

Citation

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA425/2002

The plaintiff failed to prove that the parties reached a binding oral agreement making the HK$700,000 balance payable under the alleged terms; the court found both principal witnesses unreliable and concluded there was no established agreement on payment terms at the exchange, therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to the balance and the claim was dismissed.
21 Sept 2004

FU SAU KWOK BARRY v. FOO SAU CHUN RICHARD

Citation

FU SAU KWOK BARRY v. FOO SAU CHUN RICHARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL20/2004

Summary judgment was refused because triable issues of both liability and quantum exist (including a disputed alleged oral variation, contradictory documentary schedule and factual disputes over payments and collateral) such that the defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend and the matter requires full trial and discovery before any assessment of damages.
7 Jul 1998

SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA493/1998

The plaintiffs demonstrated a seriously arguable case that the fraud exception applied to prevent payment under the letter of credit; consequently the court refused to discharge the interlocutory injunction and dismissed the defendant's application to do so.
22 Jul 1994

CHOY BING WING v. THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.

Citation

CHOY BING WING v. THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT8/1992

No oral agreement of 25 July 1990 to pay on an hourly basis was proven; the October 1987 Agreement remained effective for stage payments reached before termination, so Plaintiff is entitled to the 20% stage payment on approval of structural plans and the 7.5% stage payment on issue of Occupation Permit, calculated on the higher of the original HK$320,000,000 estimate or the prevailing design's total construction costs at termination; survey fees for Activity F are limited by agreed caps; quantification is to be referred to a Master.
6 Jan 1986

LAU KAI MING t/a GRANDEUR CO v. CHEUNG KAM PUI AND ANOTHER t/a YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO

Citation

LAU KAI MING t/a GRANDEUR CO v. CHEUNG KAM PUI AND ANOTHER t/a YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14382/1983

The court found that after the February 1981 strike the parties' relationship was materially varied and the clear original subcontract had been superseded by practical arrangements (notably a $120 per load regime), the plaintiff effectively took over active control and retained $10 per load for finishing; because there were no reliable accounts or invoices and the defendants failed to prove the asserted agreements (15.50 per m3, plant hire, salary, severance), both the plaintiff's claims and the defendants' counterclaims failed on the balance of probabilities.