Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parol evidence rule

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2025

MAN CHIN CHIN IVY AND ANOTHER v. BLANDUS INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1299/2020

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the SPA and Assignment reflected the true agreed consideration of HK$4.5 million, the Important Private Agreement and unsigned Products Agreement were inadmissible or unproven, the IOU for RMB3,555,000 was authentic and P1 owed that debt, HK$452,398 of Products had been supplied, and an oral agreement to set off mortgage repayment, loan and product costs against the property existed; consequently Ps’ claim failed and Ds’ counterclaim succeeded resulting in a net judgment against P1 for HK$2,408,480.
29 May 2024

ZHANG JIZHI v. HONG KONG TV INTERNATIONAL MEDIA GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 464
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed legal question was not of sufficient general or public importance and was not material to the outcome: the post-contractual documents relied on did not exclude the 1st Defendant from Party A and, in any event, the Master’s alternative judgment in restitution against the 1st Defendant would remain; no special or exceptional features justified invoking the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b). Consequently the Notice of Motion and the Stay Summons were dismissed and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
28 Sept 2023

LING MAN YIU RAYMOND t/a BUILD TECH ENGINEERING CO v. YAU LUEN METAL WORKS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1161
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4198/2019

On the balance of probabilities the cheque was delivered operatively and parol evidence creating post-delivery conditions was inadmissible; even if conditions existed defendant failed to prove non-compliance; plaintiff failed to discharge burden to prove Interim Account figures and therefore the Final Account figure of HK$1,893,002.20 is adopted; defendant failed to show lawful incorporation or contractual basis for the disputed deductions or retention beyond clause 12, so those deductions are disallowed, producing a net award under the Sub-Contract of HK$174,722.20 plus the cheque sum of HK$…
7 Jul 2023

WILFRED WAI FU HSU v. MICHAEL HAK MAN YUEN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1778
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1801/2019

The Court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence, found the written Promissory Note and Loan Agreement was a deliberate, commercial and legally binding instrument supported by consideration (provision of time/liquidity), rejected the Defendant's oral assertions and late evidence as unreliable or unpleaded, found no proven vitiating factors or valid Extension Agreement, and thus entered judgment for the Plaintiff for the stated principal, interest and late fees.
12 Apr 2022

HK MACAU FORTUNE LTD v. KWOK CHUN WA

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 18
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE893/2021

The tribunal found on the evidence that Sincere Link had agreed to a temporary reduction of rent by oral agreement or conduct and/or there was a waiver/acquiescence evidenced by 16 months of reduced payments and tenant expenditure; the variation/waiver was temporary but, because the applicant had constructive notice (insufficient inquiries were made) and there was no notice from landlord to reinstate the original rent after acquisition, the successor-in-title was bound by the reduced rent and the respondent was not in breach; accordingly the application for recovery of possession and rent was…
28 Feb 2022

DADRA INC v. CHAN CHOI HAR IVY

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1756/2019

The defendant failed to raise any believable triable issue: the plaintiff's case is fully supported by contemporaneous documents showing a loan and the issuance and delivery of cheques; the defendant's inconsistent and inherently improbable factual assertions attempt impermissibly to vary the written terms of the cheque and are inadmissible; therefore summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Dec 2021

CYBER INSURANCE BROKERS LTD v. RELEVANT MARKETING (HK) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1393
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1950/2019

On objective construction the 2016 and 2017 written agreements effected share sales which carried assets and liabilities (save the expressly excluded Speedinsurance business); the 9 February 2018 audit confirmation, signed and chopped by the defendant and countersigned by the plaintiff, was a quantifiable and unqualified admission of indebtedness of HK$2,017,803.50; the defendant failed to adduce evidence of any agreement to write off the debt or of unilateral mistake sufficient to rescind, therefore the plaintiff established its claim on the balance of probabilities.
4 Jun 2021

ASIA DEVELOP LTD v. GLORY MARK INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1572
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2532/2018

Extrinsic evidence to prove collateral oral contracts is admissible in principle but the defendants' allegations were inherently incredible and not strictly proved; the written loan agreement on its face showed D1 contracted as principal so D1 remained personally liable and D2 was liable as guarantor; no real and bona fide defence was established and there was no reason for trial; appeal dismissed and summary judgment upheld.
24 May 2021

JML-CRAFT PTY LTD v. CHINA PING AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT27/2021

The injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to establish the high thresholds required to restrain enforcement of an on‑demand bond: there was not a strong case to imply limiting terms or to found estoppel by convention, nor was fraud the only realistic inference. Crucially, the contractual mechanism required written certification of satisfactory delivery which was not issued and which the plaintiff had not sought, therefore the 2nd Defendant's entitlement to call the Advance Payment Bond remained valid; costs awarded to defendants.
8 Feb 2021

CHINA STATE FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT16/2020

The court concluded that the defendant's certified claim for liquidated and ascertained damages (as calculated under the contractual clause and certified by the Architect up to 31 August 2019) constituted a liquidated sum capable of being set off against the plaintiff's claim under the dishonoured cheque, and therefore granted leave to defend limited to the set-off; the defendant's alleged conditional delivery defence lacked credibility and did not disclose an arguable triable issue, so leave to defend on that ground was refused.