Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procurement of breach of contract

Legal area

Court

28 Sept 2020

MAK CHEUNG CHING v. WONG MEI FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA254/2016

Plaintiff's claims dismissed because he failed to prove on balance of probabilities that defendants instructed or were principals of the persons who made calls or attended TVB/On Kee; evidence was deficient, largely hearsay and uncorroborated and key witnesses lacked credibility; the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim failed because the Subject Sum was paid as part payment for delivered goods (transaction 9), not induced by fraud, and there was no credible oral offsetting agreement, so no restitution/order for return of the sum.
15 Dec 2018

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2718
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1987/2005

On construction the court held Angola’s obligation under the JV Agreement was to arrange/procure finance (not to make direct cash injection). Angola’s procurement of the HK$20m loan constituted performance but was late; Bai Jun’s purported termination on 22 June 2005 was invalid and Angola validly terminated later; consequences of breach did not include restitution of Angola’s 50% shares in Zhong Xin — only contractual remedies applied. Angola was ordered to pay the net balance of RMB1,000,000 (RMB3m due less RMB2m liquidated damages). The Settlement Agreement was found to be backdated and ex…
17 Mar 2014

INTERNATIONAL TRADEMART CO LTD v. PROCON HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRADEMART CO LTD v. PROCON HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1301/2013

The claim against the 2nd defendant failed as a matter of law because she was the sole director and sole shareholder of a one‑person company and the pleaded case did not establish that she acted outside her corporate capacity or mala fide so as to attract personal liability; the pleaded 'alter ego' assertions and proposed amendments could not cure this fundamental flaw and therefore the claim was plainly liable to be struck out and amendment refused.
16 Jan 2007

NATUZZI SPA v. DE CORO LTD

Citation

NATUZZI SPA v. DE CORO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1702/2001

Plaintiff's claims dismissed. On procurement: although prototypists worked for defendant before 20 March 2001, plaintiff failed to prove defendant had the requisite actual knowledge or intention to procure breaches in respect of Bosco and Pennacchia and failed to prove consequential damage; pre‑termination dealings with Scarati did not show defendant knew he remained employed; post‑termination dealings violated the non‑competition agreement but the restraint (18 months) was unreasonable in public interest and unenforceable. On copyright: plaintiff relied solely on 1:10 sketches; comparisons a…
16 Jun 2006

NATUZZI SPA v. DE CORO LTD

Citation

NATUZZI SPA v. DE CORO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4166/2003

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance that the Defendant employed the former employee during the prohibited period; the Non-competition Agreement was unenforceable under Hong Kong law because the 18-month restraint went beyond any legitimate protectable interest (manufacturing process methods were general trade knowledge and new design confidentiality would not justify 18 months); no misuse of confidential information was established; accordingly Plaintiff's claims were dismissed and costs ordered nisi in favour of the Defendant.
16 Jul 1999

CHINASCREEN LTD. v. CHINA SILK ENTERPRISE LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINASCREEN LTD. v. CHINA SILK ENTERPRISE LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2411/1992

The Court found that binding contracts existed between Chinascreen and Otto Kern; Otto Kern's cancellation was not justified and amounted to breach; Mr Ting and Goldyork procured that breach by enticing Chinascreen's merchandisers to defect, and Mr Ting breached his fiduciary duties as director; Goldyork, controlled by Mr Ting, was imputed with his knowledge and must account as constructive trustee for profits derived; conspiracy involving China Silk was not established; quantification: damages for procurement were fixed at $3,206,824 or, alternatively, account of profits for Spring 1992 of $…
3 May 1999

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13826/1998

The Court affirmed the Master's refusal to order trial of the preliminary issues because the defendant's proposal would in practice require a full trial of contested facts (including the plaintiffs' pending amendment alleging an oral agreement), Order 33 was not intended to accommodate the defendant's attempt to shortcut normal procedure, and there was no justification to depart from the normal course; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
21 Dec 1998

DIETER HEINZ STEIMECKE AND OTHERS v. ARMIDALE LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

DIETER HEINZ STEIMECKE AND OTHERS v. ARMIDALE LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11299/1997

The judge held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case that Jenoptik procured the breach or used improper means; the contested contractual clause was, in any event, uncertain and unenforceable as drafted; an arm's‑length acquisition for valuable consideration with knowledge of the documents did not amount to procurement, and therefore the Master's grant of leave to serve out was wrong and must be set aside.