Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination and repudiation

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2023

深圳佳銳食品有限公司 v. WING TECH LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1036
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5436/2019

On the evidence the defendant failed to prove any agreement permitting retention of the €24,380.77; remittance to Cadoret was a gratuitous service not a contractual obligation; parties mutually agreed to end commission cooperation by end of April 2019; defendant is therefore ordered to return €24,380.77 with interest and is entitled only to €1,746.35 commission for April 2019 with interest; equitable set-off and costs orders follow.
17 Sept 2015

FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v. YEUNG HIU CHONG t/a FINETEC METAL WORKS

Citation

FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v. YEUNG HIU CHONG t/a FINETEC METAL WORKS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ577/2013

Court found a binding partly oral/partly written Agreement made in September 2008 (the unsigned Sub-Sub-Contract was not binding), that the defendant breached by failing to deliver components and complete installation per the plaintiff/Gammon schedule and lacked funds to finish the works, that the delay and inability to perform were serious and justified the plaintiff's termination; accordingly judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
9 May 2014

LI WAI KEUNG t/a ROBERT LI PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT CO v. FEDERAL STEEL WORKS ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

LI WAI KEUNG t/a ROBERT LI PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT CO v. FEDERAL STEEL WORKS ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3587/2011

Clause 25 does not impose a condition precedent requiring proof of specific extra tasks before entitlement; the 5% bonus is payable upon the defendant receiving additional/variation valuation because the clause is a practical mechanism to share overheads; the plaintiff did provide extra efforts and resources and the defendant unlawfully terminated the Agreement on 24 September 2007; the 5% is calculated on HKD 25,411,036.25 producing HKD 1,083,051.81 and the plaintiff is entitled to pro rata retainer HKD 40,000, but the award is capped at HKD 1,000,000 to fit District Court jurisdiction; defe…
30 Mar 2011

CHEVALIER (CONSTRUCTION) CO LTD v. TAK CHEONG ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHEVALIER (CONSTRUCTION) CO LTD v. TAK CHEONG ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA153/2008

The plaintiff's termination of the contract on 11 October 2007 was unlawful because the plaintiff failed to prove the contractual grounds and did not comply with Clause 22 notice requirements; by preventing the defendant's workers returning to site the plaintiff repudiated the contract. Nevertheless, after accounting agreed interim payments, wages paid, allowed variation orders, agreed omission deduction, assessed unfinished and substandard works and value of materials left, the net balance due to the plaintiff was HKD 436,403.01; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
13 Nov 2008

SOUTHERN KING LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD

Citation

SOUTHERN KING LTD v. MTR CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV222/2008

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the appellants, represented in court and having initiated and set down the appeals, deliberately failed and refused to move the appeals when the Court of Appeal sat to hear them; that conduct constituted an abuse of the process of the court and disentitled them to the relief sought, and the Deputy High Court Judge's order striking out and dismissing the purchasers' claims for failure to complete was correct and stands.
17 May 2007

LAI KIT LENG t/a OU KEI HONG or OU KEI HONG, MACAU v. CHINA SPORTS EQUIPMENT TRADING (HK) CO LTD

Citation

LAI KIT LENG t/a OU KEI HONG or OU KEI HONG, MACAU v. CHINA SPORTS EQUIPMENT TRADING (HK) CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3883/2004

The Court found the Plaintiff was the contracting party to the 31 May 2001 Agreement; the Defendant failed to prove misrepresentation or novation substituting ZSOK as the contracting party; the supplemental manufacturing licence for the third year was not concluded because the Plaintiff refused the Defendant's terms; the Plaintiff terminated the Agreement on 28 February 2004 and therefore cannot claim damages for non‑supply or failure to renew; the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover HK$87,559.68; and the Defendant failed to prove trademark infringement or passing off — accordingly both the…
3 May 2001

FIRST SHANGHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DAHLIA PROPERTIES PTE LTD.

Citation

FIRST SHANGHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. v. DAHLIA PROPERTIES PTE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13426/1997

Clause 11 unambiguously gave the Purchaser seven working days after receipt of title deeds to raise requisitions; that clause was workable and should be enforced; the Vendor breached by delivering title deeds on 24 October leaving insufficient time; the Purchaser did not waive the entitlement and was entitled to terminate on 30 October; the Vendor's late responses kept the contract alive and obliged the Vendor to return deeds and allow time to consider replies, therefore Purchaser was not obliged to complete on 31 October and Vendor's forfeiture was wrongful.
15 Jun 2000

TRIDANT ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. MANSION HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

TRIDANT ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. MANSION HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT3/1996

Clause 25 of the KGJV/Tridant main contract was incorporated into the Tridant/Mansion sub-contracts; Mansion materially breached express and/or implied obligations to proceed regularly and diligently, failed to provide adequate materials, plant, labour and supervision and wrongfully refused to order major plant/materials unless Tridant substituted Mansion Fire, conduct which objectively amounted to repudiation; Tridant validly accepted repudiation and lawfully terminated the FS and PD sub-contracts and recovered damages of HK$15,798,893 plus an indemnity for further claims; Mansion Fire succe…
6 May 1997

MARIA ISABEL DA LUEZ t/a MILKY TOYS v. NTL OCEANIA PTY LTD.

Citation

MARIA ISABEL DA LUEZ t/a MILKY TOYS v. NTL OCEANIA PTY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA979/1991

The agreement between the parties was an agency agreement not an enforceable contract for sale beyond the initial agreed 500kg at the specified price; defendant repudiated the agency obligation and plaintiff proved only nominal loss, entitling her to nominal damages of HKD 500; plaintiff's commission claim failed because entitlement was conditional on receipt of a letter of credit and no sufficient loss was proved; defendant's counterclaim and quantum meruit claim against plaintiff failed because plaintiff acted as agent and no direct liability was established.