Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Post‑contractual conduct

  • 8 Oct 2021

    YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1456
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV15/2021

    The appeals were dismissed because Coleman J’s primary-fact and mixed-fact-and-law findings were not shown to be plainly wrong: the alleged oral agreement either was not made or lacked intention to create legal relations; the subsequent payments were consistent with gifts/personal payments rather than contractually calculated profit shares; House 12 was always intended by the defendant for self-use and thus not an ‘investment’ within the alleged agreement and the Notional Sale Term should not be implied; the plaintiff did not prove she was the effective cause of the acquisitions; and the Fund…

  • 18 Mar 2020

    CHEUNG AH MEI AND ANOTHER v. WONG SHIU LING

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 449
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2025/2014

    On construction of the Letter in its commercial and SPA/listing context and applying the objective test, the arrangements were between the Shareholders and SCE/Group (with recipient companies such as Phoenix assuming operational receipt), not a personal undertaking by the Defendant; further an implied term (necessary for business efficacy) limited payments to the interim period pending the listing so payments ceased when the listing failed; accordingly Plaintiffs failed to prove Defendant's personal liability and the claims were dismissed.

  • 20 Apr 2016

    TUNG FAI v. WEI DONG

    Citation
    TUNG FAI v. WEI DONG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1660/2013

    FBP Appeal allowed in part: the 1st Request (particulars of paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim) was necessary and Tung must file/serve those particulars within 14 days; the 2nd and 3rd Requests were unnecessary and refused. WS Amended Appeal (application for leave to file/serve the Wei and Yao third witness statements in latest draft form) was dismissed because the drafts were repetitive, argumentative, of marginal relevance and an improper attempt to have a 'last word'; costs orders made accordingly and directions given for apportionment of the previously assessed costs (HK$125,430).