Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-off and counterclaim

Legal area

Court

3 Apr 2025

TAN ZHAO TIAN, TRADING AS MAN YAT SPACE DECORATION DESIGN ENG CO 對 YUN TAI CONSTRUCTION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 578
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2812/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the contracts were founded on the plaintiff's 15 July 2018 quotation, an on‑site evaluation occurred in late November 2018 by the defendant's employee (Mr Chen Seng Da) and a quantity surveyor, and Mr Chen Seng Da had authority (actual or ostensible) to endorse the computer copies of the invoices; the defendant had not validly established that later cheques discharged the contracts; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for HK$549,755 plus interest and the defendant's counterclaim failed.
27 Feb 2025

BUILD KING CONSTRUCTION LTD formerly known as KADEN CONSTRUCTION LTD v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2023

The application to re-amend was dismissed because the bulk of the proposed new cause of action was prima facie statute-barred and fact‑sensitive (continuing breach disputed) such that it could not properly be decided on interlocutory amendment; the abatement of price defence (not caught by limitation) lacked adequate particularisation and the proposed counterclaim quantum was speculative, therefore the overall amendment application failed and must be refused, with leave to bring a fresh properly particularised application or new proceedings.
28 Oct 2024

MAXFUL SAIL LTD v. YAU CHUNG WO JEREMIAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2003/2019

The Transfer was an absolute assignment in writing of Pun's rights under the Mortgage that satisfied s9 LAO Cap 23 and became effective on service of notice (17 October 2019); the Transfer was authentic and properly witnessed; the Mortgage must be construed to require payment of principal and interest and the HK$15,000 monthly payment is interest (4.5% p.a.); the 1840 default judgment cannot be relied on as a set-off because it was procured by material non-disclosure and constituted an abuse of process in the circumstances, save for proven partial repayments of HK$120,000; accordingly judgmen…
15 Apr 2024

GAO XIN JIAN GROUP (HONG KONG) HOLDING COMPANY LTD v. KIN LEE PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1453/2019

The court found that the Plaintiff had not shown it was entitled to summary judgment because there were bona fide triable issues (defective goods, late or non-delivery, preconditions to payment and related mitigation) supported by contemporaneous correspondence, witness evidence and documentary materials; consequently the O.14 summons was dismissed (O.14 Appeal allowed). The Defendant was granted leave to file the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim (draft RADCC) with consequential amendments by the Plaintiff; the Time Extension appeal/summons was dismissed on the merits but amendment leave w…
11 Jan 2023

HUI HEON MING HERMAN t/a HERMAN H. M. HUI & CO. v. HO SHUN MIU (何舜苗), also known as HO SHUN MIU MELODY, and also known as HO SHUN MIU MELODIE

Citation

[2023] HKDC 60
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5144/2018

Discovery was relevant and within the retainer; although the solicitor did not specifically advise on PDPO, the two-stage strategy (demand letter then pre-action discovery/NPO) was a reasonable exercise of professional judgment and any omission to press PDPO earlier was not such as no reasonably competent practitioner could have made it; defendant failed to discharge heavy onus of proving negligence; judgment entered for plaintiff for the Outstanding Bill with interest and costs; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
7 Jan 2022

LING MAN YIU RAYMOND t/a BUILD TECH ENGINEERING CO v. YAU LUEN METAL WORKS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4198/2019

The Master did not err in law nor act unreasonably in ordering costs in the cause because the consolidation application was part of case management, the plaintiff\'s conduct did not amount to unreasonable opposition justifying departure from the usual order, and the additional correspondence was inadmissible on appeal as the Ladd v Marshall criteria were not met; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
25 Nov 2020

LI LIANG v. CHIU MAN HON

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2945
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2579/2016

The court accepted objective contemporaneous evidence (the TYG Agreement and timing/quantum of payments) and found on the balance of probabilities that the HK$7,992,000 paid on 16 January 2015 was payment due under the TYG Agreement and not repayment of Li's loan; accordingly the Agreement between Li and Chiu remained unpaid except for payments specifically made, leaving Chiu indebted to Li in the net sum of HK$8,000,000.
8 Jul 2020

ALPHA FINANCIAL PRESS LTD v. SHANGHAI DAZHONG PUBLIC UTILITIES (GROUP) CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1505
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1453/2018

The Defendant failed to particularise or provide contemporaneous evidence to support alleged breaches of implied terms or to show an arguable set-off; the assertions were bare and unparticularised and did not meet the threshold to defeat a summary judgment application; accordingly final judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for the invoiced sum plus contractual interest and costs to follow the event.
14 May 2020

KALE ASSETS LTD v. RICHINA PACIFIC LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 599
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2049/2014

Application for summary judgment refused because defendant raised credible, non-frivolous defences that are factually and legally intertwined with the remainder of the claim (not severable): construction issues of the master agreements concerning conditions precedent and PRC law compliance (including alleged need for PRC approval and the effect of RMB remittances/DAL) create triable issues; expert evidence on PRC law and contemporaneous correspondence render the defence sufficiently arguable to require trial.
9 Apr 2019

BAOSTEEL ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO LTD v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 435
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP7/2019

CZ failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal and the Judge did not err in principle nor exercise her discretion in a plainly wrong manner; ongoing PRC proceedings and any subsequent PRC judgment could not be relied upon by CZ as a defence to enforcement because any set-off/cross-claim was HH's and not CZ's, and BS would be unjustly prejudiced by further delay, therefore leave to appeal to extend the stay was refused.