Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Time of essence

  • 21 Dec 2022

    LEUNG HOK WAI BRIAN v. WONG KWOK HON

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3733
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP309/2022

    The Estate was liable for damages because the purchaser could not tender performance on the contractual date due to there being no appointed personal representative (and bank-imposed security requirements), so the failure to complete on 30/6/2021 was the Estate's breach; time remained of the essence; damages for delay are measured by market rental value for the period of delay and were assessed at HKD 214,516.

  • 30 Sept 2022

    UNISON FAITH LTD v. WU TAK LEUNG

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 2904
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2284/2014

    Defendant's asserted forfeiture and termination were unilateral and unsupported by the written Agreement or admissible evidence of an agreed forfeiture term or communicated acceptance of repudiation; plaintiff continued to perform and altered its position, and equity requires recognition of plaintiff's beneficial interest — accordingly defendant holds the Property on trust for plaintiff and must execute conveyance upon plaintiff paying the outstanding contractual balance (HK$2,250,000) and obtaining necessary governmental consents.

  • 20 Apr 2017

    JUMBO SMART LTD v. LI YIM TSO t/a FAITHFUL TRADING CENTER

    Citation
    JUMBO SMART LTD v. LI YIM TSO t/a FAITHFUL TRADING CENTER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3636/2014

    The court found triable issues as to what constituted a reasonable time for delivery and whether plaintiff had lawfully terminated given no dates were fixed and no notice making time of the essence was given; therefore the case was not suitable for summary determination and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.

  • 4 Aug 2015

    MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO

    Citation
    MANY GAIN INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN FAI HO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1448/2011

    Time of completion was not of the essence at the inception of the Agreement; WC's letter of 15 June 2011 did not make time of the essence, and even if it had, five days was not a reasonable time (court found seven days would be the minimum); Defendant treated the Agreement as rescinded and thereby was in repudiatory breach; Plaintiff entitled to specific performance; Defendant's memorandum of rescission is void and registration must be vacated; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to Plaintiff.

  • 30 Mar 2015

    TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD v. PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD

    Citation
    TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD v. PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1930/2011

    The court held that Topwin's signing and return of the PS3 purchase orders amounted to acceptance of fixed shipment dates which, given the commercial context and target Christmas season, were of the essence; Topwin breached by late delivery and by failing to deliver the remaining PS3 units and Prism validly treated remaining orders as repudiated; Prism was entitled to damages for loss of profit (USD144,321.64) and additional airfreight (USD175,508.22) and Topwin's counterclaims were dismissed; no concluded contract existed for the Xbox headsets (Topwin did not accept the Xbox POs/SCs) and Pri…

  • 30 Mar 2015

    PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD v. TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD

    Citation
    PRISM TECHNOLOGY LTD v. TOPWIN & COMPANIES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1190/2011

    Topwin's signing and return of PS3 purchase orders established acceptance of fixed shipment dates which, given the commercial context and Sony's deadline, were of the essence; Topwin's failure to deliver by those dates and its failure to obtain Sony approval for improved samples entitled Prism to treat remaining PS3 contracts as repudiated and recover foreseeable losses (airfreight and loss of profit); no concluded contract existed for Xbox headsets because Xbox POs/SCs were not accepted/signed; PS3 toolings were payable and settled, Xbox tooling deposit recoverable due to failure of consider…

  • 16 Dec 2010

    WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO

    Citation
    WU WAI SAN, JANET v. CHU CHEONG KIT, RAYMOND t/a RAYMOND CHU & CO
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2672/2008

    The Court found that advancing the completion date did not remove the contract\'s defined Business Hours; the Defendant failed to ensure delivery within those hours, did not challenge the vendor\'s recorded arrival time promptly, and handled the dispute imprudently; the Defendant was negligent and liable to reimburse the Plaintiff HK$180,000 plus associated costs and interest resulting from mitigation of loss.

  • 10 Jul 2009

    MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD

    Citation
    MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3303/2007

    The court found objective documentary evidence established two separate contracts with distinct terms and delivery dates; payment by cheque on 22 June 2007 made the first contract's delivery due by 6 July 2007; Defendant failed and unjustifiably refused to deliver and effectively aborted performance; Plaintiff entitled to refund of paid sums with interest and costs; Defendant's arguments of one contract, export problems and Plaintiff's changing instructions did not excuse failure to deliver and were rejected.

  • 10 Jul 2009

    MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD

    Citation
    MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3481/2007

    Court found there were two separate and independent contracts with distinct delivery dates; delivery for the first contract was due on 6 July 2007 (14 days from receipt of payment on 22 June 2007); the Defendant failed to deliver and wrongfully declined to perform thereafter; Defendant's arguments about a single contract, Plaintiff's alleged obstructive conduct, and cheque presentation delaying the delivery period were rejected; judgment entered for Plaintiff for refund and interest.

  • 29 Jul 2008

    CHUANG YUE CHIEN, EUGENE v. PARK HOTEL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHUANG YUE CHIEN, EUGENE v. PARK HOTEL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2363/2007

    The court struck out paragraph 2.3(2) and prayers 2, 3 and 4 because the plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, claim rescission ab initio or re-vesting of the share and loan based on an accepted repudiatory breach; an implied term to that effect would fail the business efficacy test. However the remainder of the claim for the balance was not plainly and obviously untenable and the action was not dismissed in full.