Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantification of claim

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2008

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS

Citation

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5975/2005

The lis pendens does not create a charge or lien; the rescission claim (relating to land) and the damages claim (not relating to land) must be considered separately under s.37(2)(d)(iv); because the damages component exceeds the District Court's non-land limit of $1,000,000 the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim as formulated.
19 Mar 2001

Wai Yip Design Studio Ltd. v. Gary Ahija (a male) also known as Ahuja Copaldas Holaram

Citation

Wai Yip Design Studio Ltd. v. Gary Ahija (a male) also known as Ahuja Copaldas Holaram
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16357/2000

The court found on the evidence that the parties agreed a 5% discount, the plaintiff carried out the contracted works described in the two main quotations and performed remedial work where necessary, the defendant failed to discharge his evidential burden on alleged defects (lack of expert proof and many matters remedied or approbated), additional invoices and the debit note were justified and not duplicate, and therefore judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the unpaid balance with interest for a limited period and costs to the plaintiff.
10 Mar 2000

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WHAMPOA BUILDING v. CHAN YUE

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WHAMPOA BUILDING v. CHAN YUE
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM318/1999

Because the respondent defaulted in appearance and defence, the tribunal entered judgment for the applicant for the sum claimed ($31,100) and ordered costs to the applicant to be taxed if not agreed.

Hong Kong Case Law

ADVANCE PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. ZEN CHUNG HEI HAYLEY AND OTHERS

Wai Yip Design Studio Ltd. v. Gary Ahija (a male) also known as Ahuja Copaldas Holaram

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WHAMPOA BUILDING v. CHAN YUE