Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedial costs

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2022

WEN SHEK TUN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAI FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 856
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1184/2020

Defendants held liable for persistent water seepage causing physical damage; the court accepted the 2nd expert report and awarded remedial costs of $107,072.80, rejected unproven claims for furniture/appliances, awarded loss of rent based on proven market rent $9,800 totalling $308,858.06, awarded general damages $20,000, ordered interest from 20 March 2020 at 1% above HSBC best lending rate until judgment then judgment rate, and ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs assessed at $149,617.
18 Jul 2018

崔月麗對順達家居設計工程有限公司

Citation

[2018] HKDC 791
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3998/2014

The court found the defendant had wrongfully ceased work and could not consistently substantiate that plaintiff prevented access; plaintiff validly terminated the contract for repudiatory breach; damages were assessed by reference to reasonable remedial costs and consequential losses, reduced by the defendant's accepted counterclaim, producing a net award of $58,864; interest and costs orders follow accordingly.
12 Mar 2014

TENNYSON ESTATE LTD v. BOXWOOD DESIGN LTD

Citation

TENNYSON ESTATE LTD v. BOXWOOD DESIGN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA283/2010

Defendant's persistent failure to rectify numerous non-trivial defects meant there was no practical completion and constituted a repudiatory breach; plaintiff validly terminated; liquidated damages clause was a valid pre-estimate of loss; plaintiff entitled to recover liquidated damages, reasonable cost of remedial works and insurance; defendant's unprosecuted counterclaim is dismissed.
21 Nov 2008

YIP KWAI CHOR v. KING FUNG CONSTRUCTION WORK CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIP KWAI CHOR v. KING FUNG CONSTRUCTION WORK CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV381/2007

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of fact: the oral 50:50 profit-sharing agreement was proved; the five payments totaling HK$2,500,000 were not recoverable loans but payments made with the consent of the directors; Sing Yip was liable for HK$3,247,828 to the company; a number of company cheque payments were misapplied by Lau; Lau diverted the West Kowloon subcontract for secret profit; removal of Yip was unfairly prejudicial. The appeals were dismissed and the trial orders (including buy-out directions and payment orders) were affirmed.
19 Jul 2006

CHAN YIP CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. FONG CHOW WO AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN YIP CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. FONG CHOW WO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3574/2005

The judge accepted the plaintiffs' expert appraisal and rental evidence, found the defendants failed to rebut the quantum, and therefore awarded remedial costs (HK$75,820), loss of enjoyment measured at market rental from Jan 2005 to July 2006 (HK$185,250), and survey/assessment costs (HK$15,500); interest at the judgment rate and a costs order nisi were also directed.
21 Apr 2006

MAZE ALUMINIUM ENGINEERING CO LTD v. GO-TECH FIRE PROTECTION CO LTD

Citation

MAZE ALUMINIUM ENGINEERING CO LTD v. GO-TECH FIRE PROTECTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA30/2005

Court found on the evidence that numerous panes exhibited material defects caused by an inherent manufacturing defect, there was no express or implied 7‑day limitation term, Go‑Tech declined reasonable opportunity to remedy and therefore breached the supply contract; Maze accordingly was entitled to recover the remedial cost of $1,500,202, interest from 20 July 2004 and costs.
22 Nov 2001

Tung Chun Chung v. So Wa t/a So Wa Decoration

Citation

Tung Chun Chung v. So Wa t/a So Wa Decoration
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6569/2001

The court held that there was a prima facie inference that the Plaintiff paid the remedial works by cheque(s) given the quotation and receipt addressed to him and the amounts involved, and therefore ordered limited discovery (copy cheques or bank statements evidencing those cheques) for the remedial work of HK$72,000; the court refused discovery relating to rental payments for lack of prima facie evidence that payments were made by cheque.
23 Jan 1997

CHEUNG SHING YUK TONG CO. LTD. v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

CHEUNG SHING YUK TONG CO. LTD. v. HIP HING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6793/1991

Court found plaintiff entitled to judgment but allowed reductions from the unpaid balance for the defendant's proven losses: a deduction equivalent to 5% of the contract price (HKD 24,150) representing the 'spare' portion depleted by damage, and HKD 70,000 for reasonable remedial works; short delivery claim (HKD 3,389.16) was treated as covered by the 5% allowance; counterclaim dismissed; net judgment for plaintiff HKD 50,750 plus interest and costs on District Court scale.
10 Apr 1990

SUNFACE INTERNATIONAL LTD. DAVID WAYBURNE v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

SUNFACE INTERNATIONAL LTD. DAVID WAYBURNE v. MECO ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5958/1988

The court held the plaintiffs' pleaded claims against the fifth defendant sought recovery of the cost of remedying discovered defects (pure economic loss) which is not recoverable in tort under the authority of D. & F. Estates; no actionable damage to other property attributable to the defendant's negligence was alleged, so the statements of claim disclose no reasonable cause and are 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.