Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undisclosed principal

Legal area

Court

26 May 2025

WONG WAI KAI v. LOH YIU KEUNG (also known as DENNIS LOH)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 853
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5175/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant represented that Holy Legal had the invitation/admission to the Dubai World Cup, that representation was false, the plaintiff relied on it and validly rescinded the oral sale agreement; although fraud was not proved, under Misrepresentation Ordinance s3 the defendant failed to prove the representation was innocent and an adverse inference was drawn from his failure to produce contemporaneous evidence (notably from Mr Colombo); the alleged 22 January agreement and subsequent Joint Ownership Agreement were not established; accordingl…
2 Oct 2024

TASMANIA FEEDLOT PTY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ22/2023

The summons to strike out was dismissed because Toll HK had sufficiently pleaded that Toll Australia acted as its agent and that Toll HK was an undisclosed principal entitled to sue under the OOCL Waybill; the strike out threshold is high, the asserted defects were minor and inferable from the pleaded and evidenced factual matrix, and any disputed facts require trial rather than summary disposal.
2 Oct 2024

TASMANIA FEEDLOT PTY LTD AND OTHERS v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2708
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ9/2023

The court dismissed the strike out summons because Toll HK had sufficiently pleaded and adduced evidence to infer that Toll Australia acted as its agent and that Toll HK was the undisclosed principal to the OOCL Waybill, thereby possessing locus to sue; the claim was not manifestly without prospect and any factual disputes require trial; consequently there was no plain and obvious abuse of process warranting strike out and indemnity costs were refused.
9 Jul 2024

CHUNG KONG MATERIALS (JV) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. CROWN ASIA ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA635/2022

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the proposed amendments were properly characterised as clarifying the Plaintiff’s case (permitting an undisclosed principal allegation), the Plaintiff has authority to sue or can commence a new action, the liquidators’ undertaking addresses priority concerns, and no compelling justice basis existed to permit an appeal. Costs orders were exercised against the Plaintiff because the amendment was belated and the Plaintiff failed to put its pleadings in order earlier.
5 Jan 2024

CHUNG KONG MATERIALS (JV) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. CROWN ASIA ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 53
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA635/2022

The amendments pleaded an undisclosed principal and clarified that the Plaintiff entered the subcontract in its own name; those amendments are not plainly inconsistent with the original Statement of Claim and cure the defect that would have led to striking out. On the pleaded and amended case the Plaintiff has an arguable authority and standing to sue as agent of an undisclosed principal. Accordingly the amendment summons is allowed and the appeal succeeds on that basis.
17 Dec 2020

BMS GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JUSTIN LIM SHAO CHERM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3088
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA22/2017

Although the proposed undisclosed principal cause of action is a new cause of action, it arises out of the same or substantially the same facts already pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim; the proposed amendment is not bound to fail, no sufficient evidence of prejudice or mala fides was established by D7, Order 65 rule 9 applies to the nonservice issue and no injustice arises, therefore leave to reamend is just and should be granted; consequence is dismissal of the Striking Out Summons and allowance of amendment.
10 Sept 2020

NG YAN v. LAU WING PONG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 775
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5178/2017

On the balance of probabilities the judge found the alleged principal (Gary) was not disclosed at the time of contracting and the evidence (notably contemporaneous WhatsApp communications and lack of any clear conditional repayment wording) established the defendant contracted personally; the pay-when-paid defence failed for lack of clear, unambiguous condition precedent.
10 Sept 2020

LEE WING SZE RITZ AND ANOTHER v. LAU WING PONG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 775
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5116/2017

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiffs' contemporaneous WhatsApp and other evidence showing the plaintiffs did not know of any principal at contracting and the defendant did not reserve non‑liability when repayment was demanded; the alleged agency and pay‑when‑paid condition were not proved with the necessary clarity, therefore the defendant was personally liable on the contracts.
12 Jul 2017

君悅物業管理國際有限公司經營君悅物業代理公司對呂強及另一人

Citation

君悅物業管理國際有限公司經營君悅物業代理公司對呂強及另一人
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2833/2015

Court accepted plaintiff's factual findings that the second defendant introduced the first defendant as her husband and permitted him to sign the agency agreement, and that the first defendant signed without disclosing he acted as agent; applying apparent authority and undisclosed principal principles, the court held the second defendant was the undisclosed principal and both defendants were jointly and severally liable for the commission of HK$72,800; pre-judgment interest calculated from 3 June 2015 at 4% per month until judgment, post-judgment interest at statutory rate, and costs awarded…
12 Nov 2012

HA SAU MEI WINNIE v. NG WAI WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HA SAU MEI WINNIE v. NG WAI WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV258/2011

Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge on agency and non-personal nature of the agreements and that judicial interventions did not deny a fair trial; allowed appeal in part: ordered judgment for defendants on their counterclaim for the 2nd and 3rd instalments totalling HK$400,000 (while preserving the trial judge's deduction against the Vogue Sum) and varied the defendants' repayment obligations under Clause C to HK$250,000 and HK$434,000 respectively; otherwise affirmed the trial judgment and ordered costs largely for the plaintiff (90%).