Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Time is of the essence

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

KONG LING AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI WAH

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 474
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1846/2024

Defendant breached Clause 5 by failing to deliver material company documents and breached Clause 9 by failing to provide the Proforma Accounts at least five days before completion; both obligations were conditions/time of the essence. Plaintiffs validly accepted repudiation on 13 August 2024. There were no triable issues; summary judgment was appropriate. Plaintiffs are entitled to return of the deposit, damages for wasted expenditure, interest and costs.
20 Oct 2023

NGAN, WANG SANG t/a TIN WO TONG MEDICINE, also known as TIN WO TONG MEDICINE HONG v. CHANG BO KWONG CHRIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1496
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ23/2021

Court found on balance that Madam Ngan acted as agent for the plaintiff, the Amended Refund Clause made time of the essence for delivery on 23 March 2020, defendants breached the agreement by failing to deliver, there was a total failure of consideration making defendants unjustly enriched and liable in restitution for HK$180,000, a resulting trust operated in favour of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant, Quistclose trust not established (no segregation evidence), constructive trust not pursued; judgment entered for plaintiff with interest and costs.
13 Apr 2023

RE NERICO BROTHERS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 535
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV223/2022

The appeal was struck out because the Company had repeatedly and unconditionally admitted the Outstanding Sum was owing and payable in its pleadings and at hearings below and only sought time to repay; it did not raise the defences now advanced before the judge, so raising them on appeal is an abuse of process and the grounds are unarguable such that the Court of Appeal should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the notice of appeal. The alternatively sought security for costs would have been ordered at HK$450,000 if the appeal had continued.
31 Jan 2023

LEE PO CHU FEONA v. JOYCE CHAN & CO. (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2421/2016

Court preferred the defendant's contemporaneous attendance notes and evidence, concluded the solicitors did not breach the standard duty of care owed to the purchaser, found no unequivocal guarantee by the solicitors that the vendor would produce documents or that time would be of the essence, and held the plaintiff failed to prove she would have validly terminated and avoided the loss; accordingly the claim failed.
31 Jan 2023

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD v. LEE PO CHU FEONA

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 261
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2054/2016

The court held that Lee was bound by the Agency Agreement and Commission Agreement she signed; the non est factum defence failed because the documents were not fundamentally different from what she knew and she had sufficient background and contemporaneous evidence showing knowledge of a share transfer transaction and BVI vendor entities; there was no persuasive evidence that the vendor was the defaulting party such as to absolve Lee; accordingly Centaline was entitled to recover the agreed commission as liquidated damages.
24 Jan 2017

FAST FAMOUS CORPORATION LTD v. LEE CHUN PONG BRUCE

Citation

FAST FAMOUS CORPORATION LTD v. LEE CHUN PONG BRUCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3177/2016

The defendant failed to prove waiver or estoppel. Time was of the essence; the defendant did not pay the balance due on 29 August 2016 and his cheque was dishonoured. Plaintiffs validly accepted the repudiation and terminated the PSPAs by notice. The subsequent representation/clearing of the cheque and the later tender of a cashier order did not reinstate or affirm the agreements absent clear and unequivocal communication of waiver or acceptance. The court therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to vacate the registrations and made a costs order nisi in favour of the plaintiffs.
24 Jan 2017

FAST HAPPY LTD v. LEE CHUN PONG BRUCE

Citation

FAST HAPPY LTD v. LEE CHUN PONG BRUCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3176/2016

Defendant failed to prove waiver or estoppel; plaintiffs validly accepted the defendant's repudiatory breach triggered by failure to pay the balance and dishonour of the cheque, and having validly terminated the PSPAs the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to vacate the registrations of the PSPAs from the Land Registry.
30 Jun 2015

SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV161/2014

The Court accepted the Tribunal's factual findings that there was no binding renewal contract because the NET terms were not accepted (tenant's negotiation constituted counter-offers) and any oral acknowledgment did not amount to acceptance; the debit notes and receipts did not amount to a clear unequivocal representation giving rise to estoppel; the leasing agent lacked authority to conclude the tenancies; accordingly the appeal failed and was dismissed.
17 Jun 2015

BEST ASCENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAI CHIU N.K.ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

BEST ASCENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KAI CHIU N.K.ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2014

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual conclusion that no enforceable oral modification (to reduce payment time to 5 days and make time of the essence) was reached is supported by the record and not plainly wrong; the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof and produced unreliable, inconsistent evidence and did not call the key witness; plaintiff's losses were adequately proved and the defendant was not entitled to quantum meruit as a remedy inconsistent with its breach.
22 Jul 2014

WINPLUS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD v. BEAUTY CAPTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

WINPLUS AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD v. BEAUTY CAPTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3718/2012

The court found the 18.6.2012 shipping date was a confirmed contractual date, CE certification had been represented as part of the contract and was not obtained, the defendant thereby repudiated the agreement by failing to deliver on the agreed date, and the plaintiff was entitled to terminate and recover the deposit and loss of profit because the goods were bespoke for the plaintiff's customer and not substitutable.