Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statute of frauds (writing requirement)

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2021

陳雲及另一人對振威金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1824/2013

The plaintiffs' claim based on an alleged oral agreement to sell the property in July 2011 failed because the court did not accept the plaintiffs' evidence and, in any event, agreements for sale of land are unenforceable if not in writing under Cap.219 s3; title passed to the defendants by the 1999 assignment supported by contemporaneous cheques and documents, thus plaintiffs must surrender vacant possession and pay arrears, rates, government rent and mesne profits as assessed.
16 Feb 2016

KUIT SAMUEL Y v. KUIT SHU YIP BERNARD

Citation

KUIT SAMUEL Y v. KUIT SHU YIP BERNARD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2780/2014

The summons for summary judgment is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie sustainable case: pleadings and evidence disclose multiple inconsistent agreements, essential terms (completion date and payment timetable) are missing so no concluded contract exists, the oral agreements are not shown to satisfy the statutory writing/part‑performance requirements, and there is insufficient evidence of delivery of the assignment.
24 Dec 2010

DISTINCT FORTUNE LTD v. HYNDLAND INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

DISTINCT FORTUNE LTD v. HYNDLAND INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1287/2010

The claim was struck out because there was no sufficient written memorandum under s.3 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance—the SMS did not evidence the terms and when read with the engrossment SPA the covering letter stated no binding agreement—and the alleged acts did not amount to part performance; therefore the plaintiff could not succeed and the writ and statement of claim were struck out.
20 Jul 2009

GREAT CITY HOLDINGS LTD v. TO CHUN HUNG

Citation

GREAT CITY HOLDINGS LTD v. TO CHUN HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA47/2009

On the available evidence and on balance of probabilities the plaintiff is likely to obtain judgment for a substantial sum because the defendant's oral tenancy case was inherently implausible, unsupported by particulars or documents and in any event unenforceable under s.3 CPO; the defendant's counterclaim was unquantified and unsupported; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to grant the interim payment sought.
3 Jul 2007

HOIE SOOK FONG AND ANOTHER v. ISMAIL HALIMA AND ANOTHER

Citation

HOIE SOOK FONG AND ANOTHER v. ISMAIL HALIMA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1974/2006

The court held the Master erred in striking out the Statement of Claim because the defendants failed to show the plaintiffs' case was plainly unsustainable: the GCS and SCS do not unambiguously require a strict sequence of deposit, signing and commission payment; the MOA and payment together are at least arguable as a sufficient memorandum or acts of part performance under s3; the auctioneer had ostensible authority and disputed factual issues (including alleged reserve price) precluded summary disposal. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the striking out order set aside.
9 Nov 1995

LING TAT MING and Another v. LI YUK SANG

Citation

LING TAT MING and Another v. LI YUK SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10024/1994

The oral agreement to renew the tenancy was unenforceable under section 3(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance because it was not in writing and signed; the defendant failed to prove the alleged renovation expenditure and produced no supporting receipts or photographs; estoppel did not arise; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for possession with costs.
10 Apr 1992

GEORGE H. LIU AND SUSAN PARKER LIU v. TAKE HARVEST LTD.

Citation

GEORGE H. LIU AND SUSAN PARKER LIU v. TAKE HARVEST LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/1992

The Court held that the parties’ oral agreement of 9 November constituted a new parol tenancy which, though unenforceable as a contract for a different rent under Cap 219 s3/s6(2), operated to surrender the prior written lease by operation of law; the 11 December facsimile did not constitute valid notice under s119B(2), but the defendants had accepted possession and re-entry was effective as of 11 February, entitling them to judgment on their counterclaim for HKD 44,354.80 (arrears less deposit).
20 Dec 1985

NATHAN KANER AND ANOTHER v. JOHN MICHAEL JERWOOD AND OTHERS

Citation

NATHAN KANER AND ANOTHER v. JOHN MICHAEL JERWOOD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/1985

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had made material errors of fact and law such that the appellant was denied an appreciable chance of success; the doctrine of part performance is not confined to land transactions and a pre-trial payment of HK$400,000 could amount to part performance; for these reasons the appeal must be allowed, the lower court judgment set aside and the action remitted for retrial to determine the existence, date and terms of any agreement and the effect of part performance in the circumstances.
5 Nov 1980

HSIN CHONG (MAINTENANCE) LTD v. JOHN CHEUNG SUEN YUE

Citation

HSIN CHONG (MAINTENANCE) LTD v. JOHN CHEUNG SUEN YUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4184/1979

An enforceable collateral contract existed: the defendant promised to answer for NDK's debt up to HK$500,000 and the plaintiff's advances constituted consideration. The undertaking was a guarantee (not an original indemnity) because the defendant's liability was intended to be contingent on NDK's default. There was no misrepresentation or undue pressure sufficient to vitiate consent. The plaintiff's acceptance of repudiation of the sub-contracts did not amount to a variation of the loan contract that would discharge the surety. Judgment awarded to plaintiff for HK$500,000 plus costs.
19 Feb 1975

KAMSING KNITTING FACTORY (A FIRM) v. TAI HING COTTON MILL LIMITED

Citation

KAMSING KNITTING FACTORY (A FIRM) v. TAI HING COTTON MILL LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3627/1973

The court held the delivery period stated in the written contract was not intended by the parties to be binding; an implied on‑call contract existed under which the plaintiff could call for deliveries and the defendant would supply; the defendant's letter of 31 July 1973 constituted clear repudiation; s.6(1) did not bar enforcement because part deliveries, payments and documentary records constituted sufficient memorandum/part performance; damages are assessed as the difference between market price at date of repudiation (31 July 1973) and the contract price for the 424.20 outstanding bales.