Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict compliance

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2019

MAEDA KENSETSU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA also known as MAEDA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. BAUER HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 916
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2018

The Court allowed the appeal on the notice compliance issue because Clause 21 requires strict compliance with Clause 21.2 including identification of the contractual basis of the claim and the Defendant failed to comply; therefore the Arbitrator erred in law in permitting a different legal basis to be pursued. The Court dismissed the appeal on valuation because the Arbitrator's cost‑based 'fair and reasonable' valuation (including cost plus overheads and profit) for the instructed Variation fell within the permissible range of conclusions available to him and did not amount to a legal misdire…
19 Nov 1992

FOREHAP INVESTMENTS LTD. v. DALIAN INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.

Citation

FOREHAP INVESTMENTS LTD. v. DALIAN INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV126/1992

The Court allowed the appeal because the additional words 'FOB CHINA' in Box 12 merely repeated information already correctly reflected in Box 8, created no conflict or discrepancy and therefore did not render the licence non‑conforming even if tested under the strict compliance rule; any discrepancy was de minimis.
11 Feb 1991

HING YIP HING FAT CO LTD v. THE DAIWA BANK LTD

Citation

HING YIP HING FAT CO LTD v. THE DAIWA BANK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL22/1989

Where an issuing bank rejects documents it must specify the discrepancies without delay and by telecommunication where possible and must state whether it is holding the documents or returning them; failure to specify a discrepancy at the time of rejection precludes reliance on that unnotified ground under Article 16(e). Obvious typographical errors do not defeat compliance. On the facts the Inspection Certificate met the credit requirement and linkage was sufficient, the 'Industrial' typographical error was not a valid discrepancy and the bank was precluded from relying on unnotified grounds;…
16 Jul 1987

WEALLAND ENTERPRISES CO. v. TAM TING WAI ALIAS TAM WAI TRADING AS WAI BO TRADING CO.

Citation

WEALLAND ENTERPRISES CO. v. TAM TING WAI ALIAS TAM WAI TRADING AS WAI BO TRADING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA666/1986

On the balance of probabilities the court found no evidence that the defendant accepted the late shipment and that the bill of lading was not indorsed in blank until after 22 April 1985; plaintiff failed to prove acceptance or compliance with the letter of credit terms and therefore the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, while the defendant proved loss of profit of US$1 per unit on 2,000 units and recovered US$2,000 plus interest.
8 Oct 1984

RE Y.S. LEE & SONS JEWELLERY CO. LTD.

Citation

RE Y.S. LEE & SONS JEWELLERY CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW244/1984

Posting a statutory demand to the registered office by post does not comply with the specific service requirement in s.178(a) of the Companies Ordinance; however, on the facts the court was satisfied the company was unable to pay its debts under s.177(d) due to dishonoured cheques and entered a winding up order.
30 Jul 1984

RE TUNG FUNG HONG FORWARDING AGENTS LTD

Citation

RE TUNG FUNG HONG FORWARDING AGENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW174/1984

The court holds that Section 178(a) requires strict compliance with its service provisions to produce the statutory deeming effect; therefore the petition must plead and demonstrate the precise mode of service of the statutory demand and the permissible modes are limited to those identified by the court.
13 Nov 1973

LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD

Citation

LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM) v. THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/1972

The bank was entitled to honor the drafts and recover payment because the differences between the credit and the presented documents were immaterial (de minimis), the invoices corresponded in all material particulars with the credit, the bills of lading were clean on their face, and the appellant failed to prove any material prejudice from the alleged obliterations or omissions.
3 Jul 1972

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM)

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA151/1971

Under the UCP (1962) Article 30 the commercial invoices corresponded with the credits and other shipping documents were acceptable in general terms; the obliterations and discrepancies were immaterial in the circumstances and did not render the documents non‑compliant. Consequently the bank validly accepted the documents and is entitled to recover from the defendants the sums paid under the credits.