Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard form contracts

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2023

LI CHIU WAH JOSEPH v. HONG KONG SOCIETY OF NOTARIES

Citation

[2023] HKCA 809
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV394/2020

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused. The Court held that Cavendish establishes a unified legitimate-interest proportionality test which properly subsumes traditional pre-estimate/deterrent distinctions; the applicant failed to demonstrate that principle or its application in the CA Judgment raised an arguable question of GPI; the HK$3,000 Late Charge was not a penalty because it served a legitimate purpose (ensuring compliance with the Undertaking) and the amount was not out of all proportion; questions on amenability to judicial review and the advanced new point were not…
22 Sept 2010

AT & JM GROUP LTD v. LI & FUNG (TRADING) LTD

Citation

AT & JM GROUP LTD v. LI & FUNG (TRADING) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA780/2010

Leave to appeal and a stay were refused because Li & Fung failed to demonstrate an unambiguous incorporation of the VOM (including an arbitration clause) into the PMs: the PMs expressly confined the contract to face and overleaf and required annexation and authorised signature for variations; the reference to the VOM and the emails were ambiguous, inconsistent and did not meet the annexation/signature requirement, rendering prospects of success on appeal poor.
17 Mar 2008

FEDERAL EXPRESS PACIFIC INC. v. TUNG SAU KAM t/a TIN SHUN CO

Citation

FEDERAL EXPRESS PACIFIC INC. v. TUNG SAU KAM t/a TIN SHUN CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6675/2003

The printed conditions on the back of the airway bill were incorporated into the contract by notice and the defendant's conduct; those conditions made the sender primarily responsible for all freight charges irrespective of payment instructions to bill the recipient; accordingly FedEx was entitled to recover the outstanding freight charges and had not failed to mitigate.
13 Sept 2001

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SHIMZU-PENTA OCEAN JOINT VENTURE

Citation

CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SHIMZU-PENTA OCEAN JOINT VENTURE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT131/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because Question 1 was specific to the subcontract and irrelevant to the arbitrator's dismissal of loss and expense claims; Question 2 did not meet the threshold because the arbitrator correctly construed clause 6.05 to preclude extensions of time for changes in provisional quantities; remission under s24 was refused because there was no procedural mishap or injustice warranting remittal despite an arithmetical mistake noted, and the applicant failed to discharge the onus to show such mishap.
10 Jul 2000

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE

Citation

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15039/1999

The indemnity costs clause in the standard form credit card agreements is unconscionable under the UCO because of the parties' unequal bargaining power, lack of meaningful notice, the clause's extreme breadth (covering non‑litigation and unbounded charges) and its capacity to be applied harshly and unreasonably; accordingly the court exercised its costs discretion to refuse indemnity taxation and to allow only fixed costs.
10 Jul 2000

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE

Citation

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15041/1999

The indemnity cost provisions in the credit card agreements were unconscionable within the meaning and purpose of the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance given the unequal bargaining positions, lack of notice, breadth of the clause and potential for unreasonable and unlimited charges; therefore those clauses are unenforceable and the plaintiffs are limited to the fixed costs prescribed by Order 62; appeal dismissed.
10 Jul 2000

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE

Citation

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14227/1999

The contractual indemnity cost provisions in these credit card agreements are unconscionable under the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance and therefore unenforceable; the master’s order awarding fixed costs stands and plaintiffs are limited to fixed costs under Order 62; appeal dismissed.
10 Jul 2000

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE

Citation

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14887/1999

The indemnity cost provisions in the card agreements are unconscionable under the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance on the facts (unequal bargaining power, lack of notice, unbounded and potentially unreasonable recovery of costs and charges); therefore they are unenforceable and the plaintiffs are restricted to fixed costs as provided by Order 62; appeal dismissed and Master's order for fixed costs upheld.
29 Oct 1984

CRYSTAL KNITTERS LIMITED v. HUNG WAI HOI, GILBERT t/a G.T. TRADING COMPANY

Citation

CRYSTAL KNITTERS LIMITED v. HUNG WAI HOI, GILBERT t/a G.T. TRADING COMPANY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ13550/1983

The phrase 'in the next textile year' must be read in context with surrounding circumstances to require defendants to effect permanent transfers upon being informed of the plaintiff's reduced allocation for that year; defendants breached that duty and are liable in damages.
22 Oct 1981

CHENG SUM YEE v. HANG HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

CHENG SUM YEE v. HANG HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2467/1981

The express Clause 2 reserved to the defendant an unfettered right to cancel up to execution of formal agreements; there was no evidence of an intentional waiver or of inducement and detrimental reliance sufficient for estoppel; accordingly the defendant was entitled to cancel and the plaintiffs' claims fail.