Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sub‑contracting

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2024

LUI KWONG SHING trading as WAI SING ENGINEERING COMPANY v. PINE WOOD (F.E.) INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1182
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3426/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove fulfillment of the 3rd Condition (95% completion by 25 Oct 2015) so no entitlement under the 2nd Contract; however the Oral Agreements (22 invoices) were enforceable and proved to be VOs performed by Plaintiff and payable in the net sum of HK$556,340.12 after deductions; Defendant failed to prove defects were caused by Plaintiff and its counterclaim for rectification costs is dismissed; interest and partial costs ordered to Plaintiff.
30 May 2018

TOP CATERING DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN SZE NGA FIONA t/a TASTY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 979
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1817/2015

The Contract was validly terminated by Top Catering exercising its contractual right under clause 5A following CMCSL complaints; most alleged oral promises/representations by Tasty were not enforceable for lack of consideration or because they contradicted the written contract and lacked strict proof, except the parties reached an enforceable agreement on payment for use of the small room (allowed at HKD40,000) and certain specific claims; clause 5A governed consequences of CMCSL termination so Top Catering was entitled to deduct HKD200,000 from the deposit as liquidated damages; net judgment…
14 Jun 2013

NEWS CLEANING SERVICES CO LTD v. WATSON ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

NEWS CLEANING SERVICES CO LTD v. WATSON ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2244/2009

On the balance of probabilities the court found genuine commercial oral agreements existed between the plaintiff and So (acting for the defendant), the plaintiff performed the agreements up to November 2008, So had actual and in any event apparent authority to enter the arrangements, and the defendant failed to prove dishonest assistance or conspiracy; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$556,300 with an order for defendant to account for November 2008 and pay the balance, interest at prime +1% from 1 January 2009, and defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
21 Jun 2010

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO

Citation

CHOK YICK INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. LAU CHI LUN t/a CHI HUNG CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1480/2008

On the evidence the Defendant did not contractually guarantee that the walls would be waterproof; his obligation was confined to painting waterproof material supplied by the Plaintiff and he lacked control over the materials. The Plaintiff failed to prove defective workmanship or to establish primary facts allowing an inference of negligence (res ipsa loquitur). Consequently the Plaintiff's claim fails; judgment entered for the Defendant on his counterclaim for the unpaid sum with interest; costs ordered against the Plaintiff (90% of Defendant's costs).
21 Nov 2008

WING HING ENGINEERING INVESTMENT LTD v. FORIC LTD t/a CITY ENGINEERING CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

WING HING ENGINEERING INVESTMENT LTD v. FORIC LTD t/a CITY ENGINEERING CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2287/2005

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the 1st defendant repudiated the sub‑contract and plaintiff validly accepted the repudiation on 16 March 2005; the 2nd defendant was liable on his guarantee; the defendants' third party claim against Mr Lau failed because Mr Lau was entitled to terminate for non‑payment; the plaintiff failed to prove its quantum of loss satisfactorily so only nominal damages were awarded.
15 May 2008

KAN KWAI HING t/a HING KEE ENGINEERING v. PACIFIC FINE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

KAN KWAI HING t/a HING KEE ENGINEERING v. PACIFIC FINE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1291/2007

On the evidence the contracts were back‑to‑back; the defendant's version was preferred; final payment to the plaintiff is conditional on the defendant receiving upstream payments and both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim are not presently maintainable and must await a final accounting once upstream disputes are resolved.
5 Feb 2008

RE YIM HOI MAN t/a MAN WAH ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO

Citation

RE YIM HOI MAN t/a MAN WAH ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV339/2005

Deputy Judge Ko failed to take into account the material document (Phase's 29 July 2003 letter) and the surrounding factual matrix (meeting with Able's representative, delivery of the letter to Able marked to Mr Lui's attention, conduct indicating ostensible authority and past payments), such that the Court of Appeal, exercising the discretion afresh, concluded Yim had a real prospect of success on the assignment issue; accordingly the default judgment and the bankruptcy order based on it were set aside and procedural directions and costs orders were made.
7 Dec 2006

GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2006

Construction of the Management Agreement, in particular clause 12, showed the 2nd defendant lacked authority to create direct contractual relations between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff; accordingly the 1st defendant was not liable as undisclosed principal and the quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claim failed because the 1st defendant had paid or incurred liabilities and payments contained a clause disavowing contractual relationship or agency; appeal dismissed.
17 Nov 2004

BRILLIANT (MAN SAU) ENGINEERING LTD v. PROSPERITY CONSTRUCTION AND DECORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

BRILLIANT (MAN SAU) ENGINEERING LTD v. PROSPERITY CONSTRUCTION AND DECORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT38/2004

The Letter on its true construction is a sub-contract and not an assignment; even if it could be read as an assignment the SSC expressly prohibited assignment so any assignment would be ineffective; Master Wong's prior determination that the Letter was a sub-contract is binding and precludes Brilliant from relitigating that issue; the pleaded new oral causes are inadequately particularised and allegations in respect of Sum B are barred by issue estoppel, therefore the parts of the RASOC based on assignment and specified paragraphs must be struck out and the amendment application dismissed wit…
16 Nov 2004

FALCON CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD v. KIRIN CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

FALCON CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD v. KIRIN CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT11/2003

Falcon contracted to install H‑piles within a 75 mm tolerance and was liable when deviations were established; Kirin proved deviation and recoverable losses limited to direct and foreseeable costs (Maunsell design fee and assessed additional building costs) totalling HKD 760,000; Falcon was not liable for alleged delay because completion was within a reasonable time.