Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Uberrimae fidei

Legal area

Court

29 Dec 2014

CHAO KAM YAU v. DAH SING LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Citation

CHAO KAM YAU v. DAH SING LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3737/2012

Paragraph 10 of the statement of claim and the specified objectionable paragraphs of the plaintiff's witness statement were irrelevant to the pleaded cause of action and, having acquired substantive colour only upon exchange of witness statements, were properly struck out/expunged under the rules; the appeal is allowed, the Master's decision set aside and the plaintiff ordered to re-file amended pleadings and witness statements within 14 days with costs to the 2nd defendant.
19 Apr 2012

SUM YEE MING 對 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO

Citation

SUM YEE MING 對 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP114/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's causes of action accrued on delivery of the 1992 policy and are time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance; there was no fraud or deliberate concealment to postpone accrual under s26; the applicant affirmed the policy by subsequent conduct, so rescission was not available and there was no reasonable prospect of success to justify granting leave.
3 Aug 2010

GDH LTD v. CREDITOR CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GDH LTD v. CREDITOR CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV353/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions posed were fact‑dependent and did not raise issues of great and general public importance in the context of this case; the real issue was the construction of clause 10.1(c) of the unique Debt Restructuring Agreement which, properly construed, permitted the conduct complained of; the applicant's construction was strained and commercially unsound; and the s 22(1)(b) limb relied upon was inapplicable.
25 Jun 1992

MAK YUEN YUEN v. NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. (BERMUDA) LTD.

Citation

MAK YUEN YUEN v. NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. (BERMUDA) LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7902/1990

The insurer could not avoid the policy: on proper construction the word 'loss' in the proposal question did not include theft so the Plaintiff's answer was true; further, by limiting enquiries to specific questions in the proposal form the insurer restricted its right to further disclosures, so non-disclosure of matters not asked (speeding offences) did not permit avoidance.
7 Dec 1984

LAI CHUI KAR POA HELEN v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD

Citation

LAI CHUI KAR POA HELEN v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6074/1983

The deceased had full knowledge of his chronic hepatitis and positive test results and failed to disclose those material facts which would have influenced a prudent insurer; therefore the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy and judgment for the defendant follows.
30 Nov 1984

LOO KAM BU t/a HUNG HING CHEUNG MACHINERY FACTORY (a firm) v. SUN HUNG KAI INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

LOO KAM BU t/a HUNG HING CHEUNG MACHINERY FACTORY (a firm) v. SUN HUNG KAI INSURANCE CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7514/1984

The court held that the insurer waived its right to rely on late notification by accepting the written notice on 21 April 1983 and delaying any repudiation; the April 13 endorsement was administrative/retrospective and did not create a fresh contract enabling avoidance for non-disclosure of the prior accident; breach of eye‑protection regulations was not established or did not alter the insurer's risk; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity subject to any premium adjustment under Clause 8.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAO KAM YAU v. DAH SING LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

SUM YEE MING 對 THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO

GDH LTD v. CREDITOR CO LTD AND OTHERS

MAK YUEN YUEN v. NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. (BERMUDA) LTD.

LAI CHUI KAR POA HELEN v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO (BERMUDA) LTD

LOO KAM BU t/a HUNG HING CHEUNG MACHINERY FACTORY (a firm) v. SUN HUNG KAI INSURANCE CO LTD