Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-off and cross-claims

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2008

RE LUEN CHEONG TAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

RE LUEN CHEONG TAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW190/2002

Adrian failed to substantiate its proof of debt on the balance of probabilities and did not answer repeated requests for documentation; POA certificates were insufficient on their face and inconsistent with Engineer's certificates; novation meant the Company did not receive the payment alleged; cross-claims further undermined the claim. Consequently the liquidators were justified in rejecting the proof in its entirety and the appeal is dismissed with indemnity costs in favour of the liquidators.
17 May 2005

RE GREAT ONE DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

Citation

RE GREAT ONE DEVELOPMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1148/2004

Because the petitioner demonstrated that undisputed sums remained due (HK$104,486.12 for Kelab; HK$315,985.09 for Great One) and the companies failed to comply with the court's condition to pay those sums into court, the companies were unable to pay their debts and winding-up orders were properly made.
17 May 2005

RE KELAB LTD

Citation

RE KELAB LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1147/2004

Because the petitioner established specific undisputed balances due after allowable set-offs (HK$104,486.12 for Kelab and HK$315,985.09 for Great One), the companies failed to comply with the conditional adjournment by paying those sums into court and produced no valid new grounds in further evidence, the court was satisfied the companies were unable to pay and ordered they be wound up.
5 Mar 2004

HOO CHEONG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. JADE UNION INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

HOO CHEONG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. JADE UNION INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW400/2003

The court found the company failed to establish that the bulk of its asserted set-offs and cross-claims were bona fide disputes of substance; only three items (direct payments to nominated sub-contractors HKD 7,131,253.50; liquidated damages HKD 1,372,197; defective window works HKD 844,100.86 — total HKD 9,347,551.36) had sufficient substance. The judge accepted upward adjustments to the company’s second draft final account, fixing the adjusted final account at HKD 61,131,649.27, less payments of HKD 36,855,550 leaving an indisputable balance of HKD 24,276,099.27 in favour of the petitioner.…
5 Jun 1998

LAI CHI HING t/a KWONG YUEN DECORATION CO. and Others v. COLLECTIONS INTERIOR LTD.

Citation

LAI CHI HING t/a KWONG YUEN DECORATION CO. and Others v. COLLECTIONS INTERIOR LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT25/1996

On the evidence the judge found the plaintiffs would obtain judgment at trial for at least the quantified sums because the defendant failed to justify key deductions (debit notes and client deductions) and did not challenge the interest calculations; accordingly interim payments in the specified amounts were just and ordered to be paid immediately.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE LUEN CHEONG TAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

RE GREAT ONE DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

RE KELAB LTD

HOO CHEONG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. JADE UNION INVESTMENT LTD

LAI CHI HING t/a KWONG YUEN DECORATION CO. and Others v. COLLECTIONS INTERIOR LTD.