Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination of contract

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2025

SHUM YEUNG v. CHAN CHOI HAR IVY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA547/2014

The court exercised its discretion to refuse a last-minute adjournment and proceeded with the trial with the defendants self-represented; by agreement between the parties the court accepted that no Browne v Dunn point would be taken against the unrepresented defendants, and the court treated written admissions and declarations adduced in evidence as admissible and central to the factual assessment of allegations including forgery and the disputed termination of the SPA.
15 Jan 2025

郭振強及另一人對陳國新經營燊記裝修水電工程

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 300
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA57/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate any error of law or that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the issues raised were disputes about facts or credibility which are not grounds for appellate review from the Small Claims Tribunal.
20 Nov 2024

WEALTHY INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT LTD 對 HOI YIP (HK) INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA49/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable legal error that would alter the outcome: the tribunal's factual findings had evidential support and the tribunal permissibly awarded a nominal sum given the absence of reliable documentary proof of quantum; even if termination was by breach, the lack of admissible evidence on quantum means the result (HKD100) would stand.
20 Aug 2024

CONCENTRIC FUND (HK) LTD v. FU WAI INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2660/2018

On objective analysis of contemporaneous documents and testimony the plaintiff unequivocally ceased operations, misrepresented sales and withheld defendant's entitlements; those acts constituted repudiatory breaches which the defendant validly accepted (by letter of 13 June 2018 and by pleading), entitling the defendant to termination and damages of HK$470,000; the Agreement is to be construed as obliging payment to Cai or as the defendant shall direct such that the defendant can recover the sum.
29 Mar 2023

DAILY TECH HONGKONG CO LTD v. iADVANTAGE LIMITED

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1415/2022

Higher interlocutory standard applied because the injunction would effectively determine the action; plaintiff failed to establish a clear and unequivocal representation or sufficient detrimental reliance to found waiver/estoppel; plaintiff could not demonstrate ability to provide the required bank guarantee or equivalent security or show that reasonable notice had not cured any retraction; relief from forfeiture was not available because plaintiff could not make good the default; damages were not shown to be inadequate; therefore interlocutory injunction refused and costs ordered against pla…
21 Mar 2023

何詠儀對許志健

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 808
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA42/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds relied on were factual credibility and weight-of-evidence determinations, not errors of law or jurisdictional excess under s28(1); allegations of bias were unsupported by examples showing unfairness.
2 Mar 2022

JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD v. MILLION HOTEL MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 209
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1440/2018

Leave to appeal dismissed because the defendant's three grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the 26 June 2017 descent incident did not establish repudiatory breach after repair and was considered in the judgment; the court had addressed the counterclaim and the defendant failed to plead or prove loss or seek nominal damages at trial; and the quantum argument about variable costs was a new, fact‑sensitive point not raised at trial and unfair to permit on appeal. Granting leave was also disproportionate given the modest sum. A costs order nisi was made for the defendant to pay the p…
30 Jun 2021

HUI TZE HA (許紫霞), the sole executrix of the estate of LAM YIM (林炎), deceased v. HO YUET LIN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1901
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1420/2016

The SPA was terminated on 19/10/2016 by the defendant’s counterclaim which constituted a clear and unequivocal acceptance of termination; the HK$1,000,000 was not a true deposit but an advance payment and, upon termination, gave rise to a restitutionary claim for unjust enrichment which arose on 19/10/2016 and is within the six‑year limitation; the plaintiff may rely on the post‑writ unjust enrichment cause of action; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to recover HK$1,000,000 with interest and the defendant’s forfeiture claim is dismissed while the vacating of registration is granted.
23 Sept 2020

GREATER HERO LTD v. FORCE WAY ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2459
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1152/2020

The summons was warranted; the Defendant had no arguable or cogent defence to remain on the Site; disputes over payment did not justify withholding possession; accordingly the Plaintiff was entitled to possession and to costs incurred in bringing the interlocutory application and attending the hearing, summarily assessed at HK$150,000.
4 Sept 2020

LAI KIM MING JOSEPH t/a JOE LINES CO v. MACROTECH SECURITY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 750
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3392/2014

On the balance of probabilities the relationship was a contractual joint venture (not agency); the plaintiff was entitled to HK$660,000 for 22 unpaid monthly fees but that sum is set off by the undisputed HK$100,000 loan (net HK$560,000), and entitled to HK$119,015.24 for July–August 2014 profits; claims based on implied terms or trusts in relation to Properties and bonus savings failed; defendant's counterclaims for breaches of fiduciary duties and recovery of profits/damages were dismissed.