Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement/compromise

Legal area

Court

29 May 2025

FU SAU TAI, RAYMOND v. WOO KWONG PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 904
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5546/2020

Incidents 1 and 2 were resolved by settlement through the insurer leaving only the uninsured excess which the Plaintiff refused to accept; the Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Incident 3 or the later persistent seepage (Incidents 4–5 and thereafter) originated from Flat 410; contemporaneous Joint Office findings, multiple independent consultant reports and the defendant expert’s evidence pointing to ingress via defective external walls established that causation was not proved against the Defendants; accordingly the claim is dismissed and costs awarded to Defenda…
7 Jun 2023

HONG KONG FINANCE CO LTD v. WAH FUNG FOREST RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1694/2020

The appeals were dismissed because the 2nd Defendant's settlement defence was not at least arguable—there was no unequivocal acceptance of the conditional settlement, no payment or attempt to pay, and the alleged terms were implausible—and the 3rd Defendant's contention that the mortgagee had accepted or was estopped from denying the tenancy failed on established principles; the additional evidence would not have had an important influence on the appeal and so was refused.
2 Sept 2015

LAU SIU KEUNG VINCENT v. JOHN MING SHUN VINCENT AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU SIU KEUNG VINCENT v. JOHN MING SHUN VINCENT AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1288/2012

On construction the Acquisition Agreement conveyed a 45% interest in the business and assets of the pet shop, not company shares; there was no misrepresentation, mistake or total failure of consideration; the plaintiff voluntarily admitted misconduct and voluntarily signed the Termination Letter and the Acknowledgment of Debt not under duress or undue influence; the Acknowledgment of Debt is a valid and enforceable settlement and the defendants' counterclaim for HK$550,000 succeeds; costs follow the event.
29 Jul 2011

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD

Citation

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ605/2008

The settlement recorded at the Labour Department (12 March 2007) was a bona fide compromise and Macpi HK cannot recover part of that payment as a mistaken overpayment; clause 3 is construed to mean the US$500,000 threshold applies annually with payment frequency every six months, and because the proposed variation in January 2007 was not agreed the original contract terms govern; Macpi HK failed to prove misconduct, so defendant entitled to one month's wages in lieu and to commissions for 2007 calculated under original terms resulting in a net judgment in her favour.
18 Dec 2008

CHONG CHUN WAH FRANKY v. TSUI YIU WAH JOHNNY t/a PAKLY HORTICULTURE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHONG CHUN WAH FRANKY v. TSUI YIU WAH JOHNNY t/a PAKLY HORTICULTURE AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1388/2007

The settlement and withdrawal of the Labour Department claim did not bar the Plaintiff's separate common law negligence claim because both parties did not have the separate cause of action in mind when compromising; the 1st Defendant breached the duty to provide a safe system of work and is liable for the Plaintiff's injuries subject to 20% reduction for the Plaintiff's contributory negligence; the 2nd Defendant is not liable as principal contractor because no duty was shown to have been owed to the subcontractor's employee or that the subcontractor was the 2nd Defendant's agent in respect of…
29 Aug 2007

UDL ARGOS ENGINEERING & HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO., LTD v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD

Citation

UDL ARGOS ENGINEERING & HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO., LTD v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1264/2007

The court found that no binding settlement had been proved; the parties were not ad idem on settlement; accordingly the dispute fell within the subcontract arbitration clause and the court must grant a stay and refer the matter to arbitration.
31 Jul 2006

WONG WAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. YING SHUDE AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG WAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. YING SHUDE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1209/2003

The court held that the 2nd Agreement superseded the 1st Agreement and that clause 3 fixed the payment deadline at six months from the SPC approval dated 15 July 2002 (thus due by 15 January 2003); the 1st Defendants repudiated the 2nd Agreement by failing to pay HK$10,000,000 and RMB100,000, entitling the Plaintiffs to re-transfer of the 3rd Defendant's shares (re-transferred on 16 January 2003); the Final Agreement did not take immediate effect but obliged the parties to negotiate final terms by solicitors and the 1st Defendants repudiated that settlement by refusing to negotiate/execute th…
28 Feb 1997

King Prosper Trading Ltd. v. Tenbase Trading Ltd.

Citation

King Prosper Trading Ltd. v. Tenbase Trading Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/1997

There was at least considerable doubt that the solicitors' correspondence alone produced a concluded compromise because the parties treated endorsement and filing of a consent order as the means to finalise the settlement; accordingly the stay should not have been made without resolving that issue, and independently the court had jurisdiction under Order 29 r.12 to order an interim payment and to release the HK$1,530,000 then in court to the plaintiff.
25 Nov 1994

Elijah Saatori and Another v. Cheng Chun Mo and Another

Citation

Elijah Saatori and Another v. Cheng Chun Mo and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/1992

The 2 June 1989 agreement was valid: Pioneer provided consideration or a bona fide claim and the appellants entered the agreement voluntarily so there was no economic duress; the conversion, copyright and trade‑mark claims failed for lack of proof or legal basis and the deceit claim was either unproven or time‑barred; appeal dismissed.
14 Feb 1990

TRANS-MEDICA PHARMA-HANDELSGESELLSCHARFT MBH v. ANANDA PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD

Citation

TRANS-MEDICA PHARMA-HANDELSGESELLSCHARFT MBH v. ANANDA PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL138/1989

The unsigned sales confirmations were incorporated into the contracts by the parties' course of dealing and by the plaintiff's knowledge and acceptance, and clause 11 therefore constituted a written arbitration agreement within the meaning of the Arbitration Ordinance; the alleged compromise did not remove the availability of arbitration because settlement was not implemented; accordingly a stay of proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance was ordered.