Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third-party notice

Legal area

Court

31 May 2023

BRIGHTEX (PVT) LTD v. HONGKONG DRAGON XIANG CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 460
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5772/2021

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment application because the defendant raised believable triable issues on the contract claim (ostensible authority not established on affidavit) and on restitution (bona fide change of position and causation triable); the court held the plaintiff lacked standing to strike out the Third-Party Notice and in any event striking out was not appropriate because the third-party lis between the Defendant and Amer is independent; costs nisi ordered against the plaintiff to pay 80% of the defendant's costs of the summons.
10 Jun 2022

CHEUNG SANG YU, a minor suing by YIU LEE PING, his next friend 對 DR. YEUNG MAN SHUN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 571
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI5/2020

The court struck out the third-party proceedings because the third-party notice failed to disclose a legally tenable cause against the parents (it relied on a duty to secure 'optimal treatment' which the law does not impose), the alleged parental acts/omissions did not involve the 'same damage' as the defendant's negligence so contribution under Cap.377 was inapplicable, and the defendant had unduly delayed issuing the third-party notice causing real prejudice, potential conflict of interest and likely delay to the minor's trial; on that factual and legal basis the exercise of judicial discre…
31 Jul 2020

CBRE LTD v. SUPERFORM INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1420/2019

The summary judgment application was dismissed because there are genuine triable issues as to whether a binding contract was concluded given the explicit non-binding disclaimer, the insufficiency and lateness of evidence relied on to establish an implied waiver or acceptance by conduct, and the contextual facts required to resolve authority and agreement which cannot be determined summarily. Relief from sanctions was limitedly granted to permit CBRE to file a reply to the amended defence on an 'unless' basis because Superform significantly amended its defence after CBRE's default; otherwise r…
22 Feb 1988

DAVID ANTHONY HENSHAW v. GOOD EARTH MACHINERY LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAVID ANTHONY HENSHAW v. GOOD EARTH MACHINERY LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1683/1984

The judge performed the balancing exercise and concluded the balance of convenience favored granting the adjournment because the third party had not been culpable for delay, lacked meaningful instructions and would suffer substantial prejudice if deprived of the opportunity to obtain evidence on commission; consequently the application to adjourn was allowed and costs were awarded to the third party.
1 Aug 1968

YICK CHEONG HONG (a firm) v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

YICK CHEONG HONG (a firm) v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1853/1968

Although the Business Registration application form was prima facie evidence of partnership under s.19(2), the court accepted the credible evidence of 1st and 2nd defendants that they were registered without consent and intended to invest in a limited company; accordingly the plaintiffs failed to prove partnership and their claims were dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

BRIGHTEX (PVT) LTD v. HONGKONG DRAGON XIANG CO LTD

CHEUNG SANG YU, a minor suing by YIU LEE PING, his next friend 對 DR. YEUNG MAN SHUN

CBRE LTD v. SUPERFORM INVESTMENT LTD

DAVID ANTHONY HENSHAW v. GOOD EARTH MACHINERY LTD. AND ANOTHER

YICK CHEONG HONG (a firm) v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS