Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remoteness of loss

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2024

PANG HIU MUI v. DAI CHI KEUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 886
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3000/2021

Plaintiff was entitled to recover wasted expenditure for the purchase price actually paid (RMB 298,900) and delivery expenses (RMB 31,715) because the goods were defective and rightfully rejected; the claim for loss of profits (RMB 897,000) failed for lack of pleaded and evidential basis showing defendant's knowledge or market pricing making such loss reasonably foreseeable. Interest and assessment costs awarded.
5 Oct 2023

MJH INTERNATIONAL B.V. v. ROME INTERNATIONAL HANDBAG COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA294/2021

The contract was a sale by description and by sample under S.15 and S.17 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance; tested masks from the 3rd and 4th shipments failed to meet the KN95 95% filtration standard so the Defendant breached the contract; Plaintiff proved loss and is entitled to damages for overpayment, freight/storage, reasonable legal costs and foreseeable loss of profits for the contracted supply but not for an uncommunicated additional order, which was too remote.
8 Aug 2018

TAI CHEUNG PROPERTIES LTD v. CHENG WOOD MING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1810
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA412/2014

Award limited to HK$150,000 because only a small portion of additional manpower costs was causally attributable to defendant's deletion; majority of claimed losses were either not proven to be caused by the deletion, were too remote given the parties' contemplation as of 14 December 2013, or resulted from plaintiff's independent decision to accelerate the project; therefore plaintiff entitled to partial compensation only with interest and a costs order nisi.
6 Jul 2012

HO KIN PONG AND ANOTHER v. TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO KIN PONG AND ANOTHER v. TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ624/2010

The court found there was no agreement that the Break Clause was excluded for the second year; the Written Note and the evidence of the intermediary (Leung) did not support the alleged New Rent Deal. The defendant breached the Tenancy Agreement by failing to deliver vacant possession and is liable to reimburse the plaintiffs for sums they were ordered to pay and costs incurred in the related SPA action. The losses were not too remote and the defendant failed to prove any failure to mitigate. Judgment for plaintiffs for HK$573,835 plus interest and costs; counterclaim dismissed.
5 Jul 2010

CHIU CHIT v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHIU CHIT v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP584/2010

The transmission was carried out according to the plaintiff's instructions so there was no breach of contract; although the bank was negligent in not clarifying inconsistent information, the plaintiff's incorrect instructions were the predominant cause (70% blame) and the claimed trading losses were too remote and not within reasonable contemplation; therefore leave to appeal was refused and only a reduced interest award remained.
24 Oct 2006

PACIFIC HARVEST TRADING LTD v. REALIFE CO LTD

Citation

PACIFIC HARVEST TRADING LTD v. REALIFE CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6418/2004

Court accepted Defendant's evidence as credible, found Plaintiff breached by late delivery and by producing colour-shaded yarns; Defendant proved loss (agreement with end-buyer for HK$860,000) and was entitled to set-off leading to judgment for Defendant in the net sum ordered with interest and costs.
22 Dec 2000

EUROPSONIC S.A. v. UNI-ART PRECISE PRODUCTS LTD.

Citation

EUROPSONIC S.A. v. UNI-ART PRECISE PRODUCTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19340/1998

Court found on accepted evidence that 1034 units were defective and not of merchantable quality; but Plaintiff had resold the goods to distributors and thereby accepted them and lost the right to reject. Plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract but only for proven heads: cost of the defective goods (US$33,942), limited recoverable freight (FFr.10,209), repair costs reasonably proved (FFr.208,308.2) and carriage to customers (FFr.62,280), totaling FFr.280,797.2; other claimed heads (storage, loss of profit, loss of reputation, excess freight) were rejected for lack of proof, re…
7 Sept 2000

SANTON ENTERPRISES LTD. v. CHENG WAI MUI

Citation

SANTON ENTERPRISES LTD. v. CHENG WAI MUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10352/1999

Defendant breached the oral transport contract by refusing to surrender bills of lading and return containers; the losses claimed were direct and within the parties' contemplation and therefore recoverable; damages assessed at HK$246,016.93, with costs to defendant and interest at judgment rate from date of writ until payment.
26 Jun 1996

RUDICK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HOIDA INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

Citation

RUDICK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HOIDA INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL172/1994

The court held the Defendant had assumed responsibility to keep the materials and goods for the Plaintiff but was only obliged to make them available for collection and not to provide the inventory details or to deliver; the alleged promise of 31 March 1994 lacked consideration and was not a binding contract; consequential loss claimed (US$71,333.32) was too remote because no replacement order was in contemplation when the original order was cancelled; Plaintiff proved missing and defective items and was entitled to HK$65,944.74; Defendant failed to prove its counterclaim for storage charges.
27 Nov 1992

FULLTREND CO. LTD. v. LONGER YEAR DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

FULLTREND CO. LTD. v. LONGER YEAR DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3211/1989

Plaintiff wrongfully repudiated the Sub-sale Agreement; the June 4th market collapse risk was within reasonable contemplation so loss was not too remote; the 1st Defendant acted reasonably in mitigation; measure of damages is contract price less open market value at contractual completion, and damages assessed at HKD118150 payable by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant.