Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantification of damages

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

CHINA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA784/2021

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant executed the two guarantees; circumstantial documentary evidence, public disclosures and credibility findings outweighed the Defendant's bare denial; expert handwriting evidence did not exclude the Defendant; the instruments operated as deeds or otherwise were enforceable and the Plaintiff was entitled to recover principal, contractual interest and continuing default interest and costs (order nisi).
6 Mar 2026

CAIDAO CAPITAL LTD v. HARMEN CHRISTIAAN OVERDIJK AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2911/2017

The court held that (1) the Employment Agreements were validly varied so that the TFRS revenue split was 80/20 effective 1 January 2016; (2) the monthly HK$100,000 payments constituted wages/on-account of TFRS and were intended to continue during employment; (3) there was no consensus that final TFRS entitlement was forfeited if an audit was not passed and the email exchanges did not effect such a forfeiture; (4) the Complyport Report was not an independent audit and could not be relied upon to deny TFRS; (5) Mr Overdijk validly claimed constructive dismissal for non-payment of wages on 2 Feb…
13 Feb 2026

廖芷彤對崔思遠

Citation

[2026] HKDC 113
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2789/2021

Defendant is civilly liable for the assault; the defendant's criminal conviction under ESCC 749/2019 is admissible under s62 and establishes the defendant committed the assault; medical expert evidence supporting exaggeration of long‑term symptoms was preferred over experts who relied on treating psychiatrists without explaining objective bases; plaintiff's asserted long‑term post‑concussional syndrome and loss of earning capacity were not proven on the balance of probabilities; damages assessed at HKD 204,140 but wholly offset by prior workers' compensation payments of HKD 694,182.14 so no p…
23 Dec 2025

CHAN HUI MAY KIU 對 CHING WING FAT及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1394/2016

First defendant (Ching) liable for the assault on CHAN HUI MAY KIU and must pay damages; second defendant (Tung Wah) owed visitors a duty of care but the assault was an intentional third‑party act which was not shown to be a reasonably foreseeable or preventable consequence of Tung Wah's management such that causation failed; plaintiff CHAN HEI MAN failed to prove she was assaulted; accordingly claims against Tung Wah dismissed and CHAN HEI MAN's claims dismissed; damages to CHAN HUI MAY KIU assessed at HK$56,380 plus interest and costs as ordered.
16 Dec 2025

TSE KA LAM v. WAN ON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI951/2015

The court preferred the plaintiff's contemporaneous eyewitness evidence over TP1's out‑of‑court statement and the Marine Department report, found the defendant breached duties by failing to provide sufficient manpower, a licensed signaler and adequate communication such that the crane movement caused the plaintiff's fall, rejected contributory negligence, fixed defendant liability to the plaintiff, apportioned responsibility between defendant and TP1 at 50:50, and awarded damages totalling HK$1,207,831 with specified breakdown and interest; judgment was entered against TP1 and TP2 to the defe…
22 Oct 2025

SARAS GOPI also known as SARASWATHI GOPALAKRISHNAN v. BINA DEEGAN also known as BINA CUNNINGHAM also known as BINA GOPI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3075/2015

Bina established a prima facie case of existence, possession/control and relevance for narrowed categories of documents concerning ownership/title, the 2021 sale and receipt of sale proceeds of the Taipei property; Subi failed to rebut that case or to show disclosure was unnecessary, so discovery as narrowed was ordered; Subi's cross-application was dismissed because he failed to establish prima facie existence for the broad requests, many items were previously refused or already disclosed and remaining items were irrelevant to the sole live issue of quantum; costs were awarded to Bina on an…
28 Jul 2025

LEE KA MAN v. NG TSZ MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1241
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2840/2023

Court found defendants made the Pingu, Shanghai shareholder and licence representations; those representations were objectively false; plaintiff reasonably relied on them and was induced to invest; defendants (including the company) knew of the falsity or were reckless as to truth, attracting liability for deceit and, separately, s3 Misrepresentation Ordinance liability for the company; plaintiff's out-of-pocket loss equals the payments of HK$1,466,001.82 and judgment was entered jointly and severally with interest and costs nisi.
28 Jan 2025

YU YINING v. HMVOD LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 502
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1347/2021

Defendant breached Clause 1.4 of the Deed by instructing the share registrar to withhold processing of Plaintiff's request and by failing to approach Plaintiff or take reasonable follow-up steps after BAL's report, thereby preventing Plaintiff from depositing the share certificate into CCASS and trading the shares; appropriate remedies are a declaration of ownership, a mandatory order to procure deposit within 35 days, damages for diminution in value (HK$11,456,336 to 22 Jan 2025) with specified interest, and indemnity costs to the Plaintiff.
25 Nov 2024

CHOW SUI HEI v. CHOW SUI TAK

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2925/2017

The 2014 Agreement is a valid and enforceable family arrangement despite being a family agreement; the judge found no material non‑disclosure, no undue influence and no economic duress, and ordered specific performance requiring Tak to distribute the net proceeds of the Third Street Property on a 40% (Hei), 30% (Tak), 10% (Chun), 10% (Kwai) and 10% (Yuk) basis; Tak's counterclaim mostly failed except for a payment to Tak of HK$216,240 for 40% of rental income prior to 2015; in the conversion action the court held Hei liable for wrongful disposal of Tak/Kam Yip chattels, rejected abandonment,…
17 Sept 2024

HUI PO CHI 對 NEW LANTAO BUS COMPANY (1973) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1479
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI695/2019

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove that her injury was caused by pulling the route placard or that the employer breached any duty to provide a safe system for that simple task; contemporaneous medical records and plaintiff's own admissions undermined her account; claim dismissed.