Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pure economic loss

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2008

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LIMITED (In Creditors\' Voluntary Liquidation)

Citation

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LIMITED (In Creditors\' Voluntary Liquidation)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13826/1998

The 3rd plaintiff's claim was struck out because she abandoned reflective loss claims and in any event failed to plead a special relationship or assumption of responsibility necessary to recover pure economic loss; non‑physical emotional distress damages were not recoverable on the pleaded facts; the proposed re‑amendments disclosed no reasonable cause of action and leave to amend was refused.
10 Apr 1990

BISSETT LTD. v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

BISSETT LTD. v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5969/1988

Applying D. & F. Estates and related authorities, the costs incurred to remedy discovered defects that posed an imminent risk are pure economic loss recoverable only in limited circumstances; here the remedial costs and consequential damage were not legally caused by a negligent defect to other property and therefore the statements of claim disclose no reasonable cause of action against the fifth defendant and must be struck out.
10 Apr 1990

CHARLES FRANCIS KELLAWAY HAWKES v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

CHARLES FRANCIS KELLAWAY HAWKES v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5965/1988

The statements of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the fifth defendant. Following D. & F. Estates Ltd., remedial costs incurred to render safe a discovered defect constitute purely economic loss not recoverable in tort where no physical damage to other property has been caused by the defendant's negligence; here any damage to other parts resulted from the remedial work, not from the hidden defect, so recovery in negligence is not permitted.
7 Mar 1986

YUEN KUN YEU AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

YUEN KUN YEU AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/1985

Assuming the facts pleaded, although foreseeability and some proximity existed, the court held as a matter of law that the Commissioner was not liable for the type of pure economic loss claimed; public policy and the regulatory statutory context require that losses from ordinary commercial misjudgment and failures of third parties in financial transactions are not compensable against a statutory regulator, so the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
29 Mar 1985

SHUI ON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. Y.S. LO AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEES (a firm)

Citation

SHUI ON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. Y.S. LO AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEES (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5203/1984

The application to strike out failed because on the authorities and facts pleaded it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed; architects may owe duties of care and to act fairly to contractors arising from professional/contractual proximity and foreseeable financial loss, so the pleadings disclose arguable causes of action.

Hong Kong Case Law

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LIMITED (In Creditors\' Voluntary Liquidation)

BISSETT LTD. v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.

CHARLES FRANCIS KELLAWAY HAWKES v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.

YUEN KUN YEU AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

SHUI ON CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. Y.S. LO AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEES (a firm)