Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement enforcement

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1682/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove duress, undue influence or any vitiating factor traceable to the defendants; his complaints were directed at his own lawyers and there was no evidence defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge; plaintiff had opportunity to reflect and affirmed the settlement; mere hardship or an improvident bargain does not void a freely made settlement; therefore the Schedule to the Tomlin Order is enforceable and the defendants' application to enforce succeeds (with a modified completion date).
9 Aug 2024

LAM CHOI YUK v. LAM HING WAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1279
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4265/2021

The 28 June 2021 settlement agreement is valid and enforceable: evidence (audio transcript, witness evidence and contemporaneous documents) established that the Defendant was not coerced and acted voluntarily; Catherine Chan had authority to bind the Plaintiff; the revised consideration and allocation of liabilities were commercially explicable; the Defendant breached the settlement by refusing to pay HK$1,675,737 and is liable to the Plaintiff for that sum with contractual interest; the Defendant's counterclaims based on entitlement to the HK$660,000 escrow and HIFU installments fail because…
27 May 2020

SINUAN CHAIYAWAT 及另二人對阿蘭坤帕(ALAIN KUNPA)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA1/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the consent order was founded on a settlement and the Tribunal had jurisdiction and committed no error of law; allegations of misrepresentation do not provide a ground for leave under s32(1) and must be pursued in separate proceedings to set aside the settlement.
27 Mar 2020

容冠強對庫務署署長

Citation

[2020] HKDC 78
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2653/2017

The court held the Government was a secured creditor in respect of the plaintiff's retirement benefits by virtue of the public service regulatory scheme and contractual acceptance of deduction rights; although the Government's failure to declare security in the proof of debt meant it effectively waived any security in respect of the plaintiff's salary (having taken ordinary distributions), that waiver did not extend to pension/retirement benefits which remained enforceable after bankruptcy discharge; the 2006 settlement (518 memo) was a binding agreement supported by consideration and the pla…
24 Dec 2013

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD

Citation

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2263/2013

The Amended Counterclaim was dismissed and the Plaintiff was entitled to costs in respect of the dismissal and the security for costs application; the court summarily assessed those costs at HKD 21,820 using an hourly rate of HKD 2,500 and specified allowances for manual work, communications, preparation, perusal and hearing time.
18 Mar 2011

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES FAR EAST LTD v. GST INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES FAR EAST LTD v. GST INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1211/2010

The court continued the Mareva injunction because there was sufficient risk and it would be inappropriate at interlocutory stage to discharge an order that would decide a principal trial issue; the court permitted variation to give effect to the Deed of Settlement and allow payment out of escrow because objections based on speculative contribution claims were insufficient to deny the settlement effect and would amount to an improper reverse Mareva; the exercise of discretion favoured preserving security while allowing the agreed settlement distribution.
4 Apr 2006

GURUNG, RAM PRASAD v. WLS CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GURUNG, RAM PRASAD v. WLS CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1392/2005

Because the respondents failed to pay the agreed settlement sum by the stipulated deadline despite having been given notice that an examination order would be sought and they did not apply to set aside the Order for Examination or otherwise demonstrate that omissions were material to the judge who made the order, the Applicant was justified in obtaining the Order for Examination and is therefore entitled to the costs of and occasioned by that application, to be taxed if not agreed.
5 Feb 2003

YEUNG BEE LEE, BILLY v. HKSAR

Citation

YEUNG BEE LEE, BILLY v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV195/2002

The Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of $165,000 because the appeals were prima facie re-litigation/abuse of process, the appellant was likely unable to satisfy costs orders and enforcement would cause undue delay and expense; $165,000 was reasonable and appeals will be dismissed if security is not furnished within 28 days.
20 Nov 2000

WENDEN ENGINEERING SERVICES CO. LTD. v. LEE SHING YUE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

WENDEN ENGINEERING SERVICES CO. LTD. v. LEE SHING YUE CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT90/1999

The Tomlin (consent) order unambiguously required the defendant to pay the ASD interim payments on a back‑to‑back basis and to release the specified security on the agreed date; clauses permitting reimbursement or set‑off are limited to the specific scenarios in the schedule and do not permit the defendant to withhold the claimed sums pending asserted or speculative claims, therefore the defendant must pay the specified sums while the disputed insurance deduction is reserved for final account determination.
5 May 1995

JAPAN LIFE ASIAN LTD. v. TSANG SZE CHUNG and Others

Citation

JAPAN LIFE ASIAN LTD. v. TSANG SZE CHUNG and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA571/1995

The court found there was a clear, binding settlement agreement signed by solicitors for both parties; there was no actionable misrepresentation or material non-disclosure because the second defendant had disclosed the proceedings against the first defendant in correspondence and the omission from asset affidavits did not constitute concealment of a dissipable asset; the plaintiff could not avoid the settlement for the asserted mistake; accordingly the court would give effect to the settlement by staying proceedings and granting the defendant's summons while dismissing the plaintiff's summons.