Cheung Kong Property (Business Development) Ltd v. Gold Brilliant Investment Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 280/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 December 2025.
1. Should the law hold a party to commercial negotiations to its stated position, which may not necessarily be the true or final position, or treat the statement as permissible dissembling supposedly commonplace in commerce?
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 18 cases
|
HCA 280/2021 [2025] HKCFI 6181 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 280 OF 2021 _____________
_____________
_______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ A. INTRODUCTION 1.Should the law hold a party to commercial negotiations to its stated position, which may not necessarily be the true or final position, or treat the statement as permissible dissembling supposedly commonplace in commerce? 2.In this action, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants for damages for loss of a chance. It is said the Defendants novated the rights to develop a residential development to a third-party developer without enabling the Plaintiff to exercise the right of first refusal pursuant to the terms of the Deed of Right of First Refusal (“ROFR Deed”) dated 1 September 2020. The Defendants say they had reasonably understood from the statements made on behalf of the Plaintiff during negotiations that the Plaintiff had given up the right of first refusal such that the Defendants were free to partner with another developer, and the Court should hold the Plaintiff to it words. The Plaintiff’s riposte is that it never gave up its right of first refusal as the impugned statements – properly construed – were made as part of its aggressive negotiation posturing to elicit concessions from the counterparties to the negotiations including the Defendants. 3.On 8 July 2022, the 2nd Defendant (“Mr Pan”) was adjudged bankrupt. By virtue of section 12(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6), the Plaintiff cannot proceed its claim against Mr Pan without leave of the Court. At both the Pre-Trial-Review and at the beginning of this trial, the Plaintiff made clear it does not seek to proceed its claim against Mr Pan save that, depending on the outcome of the trial, it may seek costs against him. 4.At trial, the Plaintiff was represented by Ms Sara Tong SC leading Mr Eugene Kwan and Mr Alex Chan. The 1st Defendant was represented by Ms Joyce Leung and Ms Kelly Cheng. 5.At the end of trial, I reserved judgment. Having reviewed and considered all the evidence and all of counsel’s submissions, this is my judgment. B. BACKGROUND 6.Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are undisputed or indisputable, and I find them as facts. B1. The parties 7.The Plaintiff was and is an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of CK Asset Holdings Limited (“CKA”), a company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. 8.The 1st Defendant was at all material times an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Mr Pan through a group of companies (“Holding Companies”) including Rich Region Holdings Limited (“Rich Region”) and Concept Pioneer Limited (“Concept Pioneer”), which together held 100% of the issues shares of the 1st Defendant. 9.At all material times, Mr Pan was also the Chairman and controlling shareholder of Goldin Financial Holdings Limited (“Golden Financial”), a company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. B2. The HMT Project 10.By an agreement dated 12 January 2017 (“Development Agreement”), the 1st Defendant qua developer, Mr Pan and Goldin Financial qua the 1st Defendant’s guarantors agreed with MTRC Corporation Limited (“MTRC”) qua landlord for the 1st Defendant to develop a residential development on a piece of land over the Ho Man Tin MTR Station, i.e. Kowloon Inland Lot No. 11264 (“HMT Project”). 11.The Development Agreement was supplemented and amended by a supplemental deed date 15 July 2019. Both agreements are collectively referred to as the “MTRC Development Agreement”. 12.The development costs of the HMT Project was financed by facilities totalling up to HK$8.23 billion, and executed on 17 August 2018 (“IB Facilities”) between the 1st Defendant qua borrower and the Industrial Bank Co., Ltd, Hong Kong Branch (“IB”) qua lender. Mr Pan executed an individual guarantee in favour of IB. 13.By letter dated 5 August 2020, MTRC asked for confirmation from Mr Pan, the 1st Defendant, Golden Financial (which they confirmed by countersigning the letter) that they agree to pay MTRC HK$1,000,000,000 (“HK$1B Payment Obligation”) as part of the “Lump Sum Payment” (as defined in the Development Agreement) on or before 22 January 2021. B3. ROFR Deed 14.On 1 September 2020, the ROFR Deed was executed. The 1st Defendant, Mr Pan, Rich Region and Concept Pioneer (as “Grantors”) granted to the Plaintiff (as “Grantee”) the right of first refusal with respect to, inter alia, any transaction or arrangement by or involving any of the 1st Defendant, the Holding Companies[1] and Mr Pan and any other party or parties that transfers or assigns to or allowing that party or parties to share or participate in, in whole or in part, any of the direct or indirect economic rights, benefits, entitlements, obligations and other interest of the 1st Defendant in connection with or arising from the MTRC Development Agreement (“Economic Right Transaction”). 15.The material clauses of the ROFR Deed include:
16.It is pertinent to note the ROFR Deed is not limited to Economic Right Transaction but encompassed a wide variety of other transactions including change of ownership transactions or loan transactions concerning the Property Group Companies. 17.It is also pertinent to note the parties have differing accounts – which I will address in Section E below – as to the context under which the ROFR Deed was executed.
B4. CK Heads of Agreement and ensuing negotiations 18.On 15 January 2021, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a Heads of Agreement (“CK Heads of Agreement”). Under this agreement, the parties reached an in-principle agreement for their proposed cooperation regarding the HMT Project whereby the Plaintiff would provide the Defendants with assistance and/or facilitation in relation to certain aspects of the project, subject to various key terms including the signing of legally binding definitive agreements. 19.As any legally binding definitive agreements enabling the Plaintiff’s proposed participation in the HMT Project would potentially affect the extant interests of MTRC and IB, CKA, the Plaintiff and the Defendants commenced negotiations with them after the signing of the CK Heads of Agreement. 20.By letter of 21 January 2021, MTRC stated that at the request of the 1st Defendant it was prepared to withhold taking action regarding any default in the HK$1B Payment Obligation until 9 February 2021 at 2 pm conditional upon: (a) the 1st Defendant submitting a written comprehensive proposal to MTRC by 25 January 2021 (b) the due execution of all required documents in the form to be agreed by all the parties by 8 February 2021 and (c) the 1st Defendant bearing MTRC’s costs and expenses in considering the proposal and any documentation. 21.In a letter dated 25 January 2021, the 1st Defendant enclosed a draft novation and supplemental deed to the MTRC Development Agreement, which set out the proposed key changes. 22.On 26 January 2021, MTRC provided its comment. It stated that as a general principle, other than the novation of the 1st Defendant’s rights qua developer to a party acceptable to MTRC, no terms and conditions to the MTRC Development Agreement (as supplemented by MTRC’s letter of 5 August 2020) should be changed. That said, MTRC stated it would be prepared to consider limited exceptions to that general principle (for instance it might entertain some reasonable extension to the occupation permit completion key date of 31 December 2022) but that such exceptions must be justified and must not serve to diminish MTRC’s interests, rights and benefits under the MTRC Development Agreement. 23.On 1 February 2021, 1st Defendant sent a revised proposal to MTRC in respect of the Plaintiff’s participation in the HMT Project. One of the revised terms concerned the terms of priority whereby the repayment of CKA’s funding to be made in the HMT Project (such as construction costs) would rank ahead of the IB Facilities (“Ranking Issue”). That revised term was specifically said to be subject to IB’s consent. 24.On 4 February 2021, MTRC replied indicating that certain terms in the revised proposal were unacceptable. Notably, MTRC said any proposal to revise the priority and the amount of its entitlement to the “Disposal Proceeds” (i.e. the sale proceeds of the HMT Project) was unacceptable. 25.The Plaintiff was copied in all of the correspondence mentioned in the four preceding paragraphs. 26.On 4 February 2021, a meeting was held (“4 Feb Meeting”). The critical attendees were Mr Pan, Mr Abraham Shek (“Mr Shek”), who was an independent non-executive director of Goldin Financial, Mr Gerald Ma (“Mr Ma”), who was and is a member of the Executive Committee and the General Manager of the Corporate Business Development Department of CKA, and Mr Lance Lee (“Mr Lee”) of IB. Mr Pan secretly voice-recorded a substantial part of the meeting, and the transcript was produced as evidence. 27.Both before and after the 4 Feb Meeting, Mr Pan and Mr Ma exchanged voice messages whereas Mr Shek and Mr Ma exchanged text messages. These messages were transcribed and produced as evidence. One of the major disputes between the parties at trial was the objective meaning of what was said at the 4 Feb Meeting and in these messages. 28.The Plaintiff and the Defendants ultimately did not enter into any actual cooperation or transaction regarding the HMT Project. B5. Enter Great Eagle 29.On 9 February 2021, Great Eagle Holdings Limited (“Great Eagle”) published an announcement (“GE Announcement”) stating, inter alia, that it had entered into a heads of agreement (“GE Heads of Agreement”) with the Defendants and Goldin Properties in relation to the HMT Project. Further, it announced:
30.It is common ground that the GE Transaction under the GE Heads of Agreement constituted an Economic Right Transaction under the ROFR Deed, but the Defendants did not provide any Proposal Notice in respect thereof to the Plaintiff. 31.On 10 February 2021, the Plaintiff’s solicitors (“WKLL”) wrote to the Grantors (including the Defendants) to complain that no Proposal Notice was issued in respect of the GE Transaction and the GE Heads of Agreement, and demanded the provision of such notice. On 16 February 2021, WKLL repeated the demand. 32.The Defendants’ then solicitors responded on 11 and 18 February 2021 denying breach of the ROFR Deed and asserting that the arrangement with Great Eagle was entered into after Mr Ma had represented to the Defendants and IB at the 4 Feb Meeting (and also via further WhatsApp voice messages) that, inter alia, CKA and the Plaintiff no longer wished to participate in the HMT Project, and be bound by the ROFR Deed. B6. Present action 33.On 19 February 2021, the Plaintiff commenced the present action against the Defendants seeking, inter alia, specific performance of the ROFR Deed. 34.On 24 February 2021, the Defendants, Goldin Properties, Great Eagle and Magic Energy Limited (a Great Eagle subsidiary) (“MEL”) entered into the “GE Definitive Agreement” completing the transaction contemplated under the GE Heads of Agreement. 35.On 1 March 2021, the Plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction to inter alia restrain the Defendants from proceeding with the GE Heads of Agreement and the GE Transaction. 36.In the afternoon of 4 March 2021, a day before the hearing of the interlocutory injunction application, Mr Pan filed an affirmation disclosing that the GE Transaction had already been completed via the GE Definitive Agreement and all rights and liabilities of the 1st Defendant had been novated to Great Eagle. The Plaintiff complained this fact was deliberately concealed by the Defendants. While denying any such concealment, the Defendants did not dispute that they only informed the Plaintiff of the completion after the summons for interlocutory injunction had been filed. 37.At the hearing on 5 March 2021, the Plaintiff proposed it should have one week to verify Mr Pan’s assertion as to the completion of the GE Transaction and the novation of rights and liabilities to Great Eagle. 38.DHCJ Abraham Chan SC (as he then was) accepted the proposal and granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants until 12 March 2021 or further order from proceeding with the GE Transaction unless the Plaintiff was served with a Proposal Notice. That interim injunction was discharged by consent on 10 March 2021. 39.On 8 April 2021, the Plaintiff amended its pleadings substituting the specific performance claim with damages for breach of the ROFR Deed. C. ISSUES 40.The agreed issues arising for determination are as follows:[2]
41.In respect of issue 1, as mentioned at §30 above, the parties agree the GE Transaction under the GE Heads of Agreement constituted an Economic Right Transaction under the ROFR Deed, but the Defendants did not provide any Proposal Notice in respect thereof. Additionally, Great Eagle was granted exclusivity regarding inter alia the HMT Project and the MTRC Development Agreement. As such, but for the Defendants’ implied term and estoppel / waiver defences (i.e. issues 2 to 5), they were prima facie in breach of clauses 2.01(a), 2.01(b) and 2.02(a) of the ROFR Deed. 42.As between the two groups of defences, as Ms Leung put it during her oral opening, the main “battle ground” is estoppel / waiver. Accordingly, for clarity of exposition, I will address the disputed issues in this order:
D. ESTOPPEL / WAIVER D1. The parties’ case 43.As I understand it, the 1st Defendant’s case may be summarized as follows:
44.On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s case is that the estoppel / waiver defence fails for three main reasons:
D2. Law on estoppel / waiver 45.The elements of promissory estoppel[4] (each of which does not exist in its own watertight compartment, and acquires its meaning and content in the context of the other elements) include:
46.As regards waiver (being a form of common law waiver otherwise known as election), the elements are: (1) an unequivocal representation by a party either by words or conduct that it will forgo certain rights; and (2) that party makes that representation when it is aware of (a) the facts that give rise to the rights that are being forgone and (b) the right to forgo those rights and (c) the connection between the two. See Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam at §76; Wilken & Ghaly, The Law of Waiver, Variation and Estoppel (3rd Ed), §4.45. 47.The 1st Defendant bears the burden of establishing all the necessary ingredients to ground its promissory estoppel / waiver defence: Barnes, The Law of Estoppel, §§6.234 8.61 & 8.76. 48.There are obvious similarities between the doctrines of promissory estoppel and waiver (in the sense of election). For instance, both Ms Tong and Ms Leung were ad idem as to the legal requirements concerning the representation.
49.Germane to the present case, where statements said to be actionable were made at the negotiation table:
50.Both Ms Tong and Ms Leung also agreed in the main that clause 9.04 of the ROFR Deed may but does not automatically preclude the 1st Defendant from running the estoppel / waiver in this case. In respect of a no oral modification clause, it involves a factual determination by the Court of whether there were words or conduct which “unequivocally representing that the variation was valid notwithstanding its informality”, which is something more than the informal promise itself. As for a no-waiver clause, whether the parties’ post-contractual conduct is sufficient to evince an intention to override the no-waiver clause is a matter of fact and degree to be decided on a case-by-case basis. See Re Mega Gold Holdings Ltd [2024] 4 HKLRD 583 at §82 (Recorder Richard Khaw SC); Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam at §77. 51.The parties’ main dispute on the law related to the question of knowledge. Ms Tong submitted that for both promissory estoppel and waiver, the knowledge element of the promisor or elector is the same. In particular, counsel argued that a party cannot be regarded as having forgone his rights under either promissory estoppel or waiver without knowledge of the facts giving rise to the right alleged to be forgone, of the right to forgo such right and the connection between the two. 52.Ms Leung disagreed. She argued there is a distinction between waiver and promissory estoppel on the extent of knowledge required with the latter being of a lesser degree when compared to what is required under the former. She referred to The Superhulls Cover [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 431 at 449-450 (Phillips J, as he then was).
53.Ms Leung also cited HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Axa Corporate Solutions [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1053 at §§7, 21-24 (Tuckey LJ). In that case, the learned Judge accepted the knowledge required for promissory estoppel is not that the representor has to have knowledge of the legal right upon which he will not insist but only that the representation made must carry with it some apparent awareness of the right upon which the representor will not insist. His Lordship explained the position (at §22) as thus: “Unless the representation carries with it some awareness of rights it goes nowhere: the representee will not understand the representation to mean that the representor is not going to insist upon his rights because he has said or done nothing to suggest that he has any.” 54.It has been said that the knowledge of the right in question is a key distinction between promissory estoppel and waiver (or election). While knowledge of the right is a requisite ingredient for the latter doctrine, there are authorities to the effect that knowledge of a right by a promisor when he promises not to enforce that right is not a necessary ingredient for promissory estoppel: Bremer Handelsgesellschaft GmbH v Vanden Avenne-Izegem [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 109 at 126 (Lord Salmon); Habib Bank v Tufail [2006] EWCA Civ 374 at §23 (Lloyd LJ). 55.In this regard, I would refer to the erudite discussion of this distinction in Michael Barnes QC’s work The Law of Estoppel at §§6.147 to 6.156. I agree with his view that whilst knowledge may not be a necessary ingredient to establish promissory estoppel, it may nevertheless be a significant factor to be taken into account. Notably, at §6.154, the learned author wrote (and cited HIH Casualty as his authority) that:
D3. Law on witness testimony (or the lack thereof) 56.While the exact statements made by Mr Ma, which the 1st Defendant relies on to ground its estoppel / waiver defence, have been reproduced verbatim in the evidence, the context in which those statements were uttered and understood obviously matters. Witness evidence is important in the present case to establish the context against which Mr Ma’s statements should be construed. 57.The Plaintiff called two witnesses to give evidence at trial, i.e. Mr Ma and Mr Ruskin Chow (“Mr Chow”) whereas the 1st Defendant did not call any witness even though it had previously filed witness statements from Mr Pan and Mr Shek. 58.In assessing the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witnesses, I have had regard to the well-known principles summarized in Golden Miles Group Holdings Ltd v Jacob & Co Ltd [2025] HKCFI 663 at §§104-106 (Cheng J); Hui Cheung Fai v Daiwa Development Ltd, unreported, HCA 1734/2009, 8 April 2014 §§77-83 (DHCJ Eugene Fung SC, as he then was); Esquire (Electronics) Ltd v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd [2007] 3 HKLRD 439 at §135 (Stock JA, as he then was). In particular:
59.Further, Ms Tong invited the Court to draw certain adverse inferences against the 1st Defendant for its failure to call Mr Pan and Mr Shek to give evidence. While I will deal with the question of whether those inferences should be drawn at the appropriate juncture of this judgment, I note the relevant legal principles, which Ms Leung did not seriously dispute:
60.Ms Leung drew my attention to the summary of the law given in Tjang Siu Thu v Profield Construction Engineering Ltd [2015] 5 HKC 22 at §33 (McWalters JA). In summary, his Lordship cautioned that the mere failure of a party to call a witness does not automatically confer an evidential benefit on the opposing party, and that whether any adverse inference should be drawn for a party failing to call a witness is a fact sensitive question depending on whether the primary facts allow such an inference to be drawn. One circumstance where it will not be appropriate to draw such an inference is where there is an explanation for the party’s failure to call the witness.[6] To that, I would add the observations of Godfrey Lam JA in Mohammad Rafiq v Kin Hong Transportation [2023] HKCA 185 at §23 where he held that a credible explanation given for the absence of a witness, even if it is not wholly satisfactory, may be sufficient to reduce or nullify the potentially detrimental effect of his or her absence or silence. 61.Properly analyzed, it seems to me there is little material difference between the parties on what the applicable law in this regard is. Understandably, the parties were anxious to lay emphasis to different aspects of the law. D4. Whether the Plaintiff made the Representations? 62.As mentioned, the exact statements made by Mr Ma that the 1st Defendant now relies upon to ground its estoppel / waiver defence have been reproduced verbatim in the evidence. The parties did not dispute the accuracy of the transcripts of the messages and the 4 Feb Meeting recording. In Ms Leung’s closing submissions, she confirmed reliance on Mr Ma’s statements made on six occasions. 63.First, on 1 February 2021 at 12:03, Mr Ma sent the following voice message to Mr Pan.
64.Second, at the 4 Feb Meeting, Mr Ma made the following six statements:
65.Third, after the 4 Feb Meeting, Mr Ma sent this voice message to Mr Pan on the same day:
66.Fourth, also on 4 February 2021 after the 4 Feb Meeting, Mr Ma and Mr Shek exchanged these text messages:
67.Fifth, on 6 February 2021, Mr Ma sent the following voice messages to Mr Pan:
68.Sixth, on 9 February 2021, Mr Ma sent this voice message to Mr Pan:
69.The sixth occasion is not part of the 1st Defendant’s pleaded case, and it is thus not entitled to rely on it. As for the remaining five occasions, they cannot be viewed in isolation but must be construed objectively in light of the relevant context. I find the following context to be germane (based largely on uncontroversial or unchallenged evidence). D4a. December 2020 to 4 February 2021 70.In December 2020 (i.e. around three months after the ROFR Deed was signed), Mr Ma met up with Mr Pan whereby the latter mentioned he had received an offer from a third party to acquire the HMT Project, and that in light of the ROFR Deed, he wanted to know CKA’s view. When Mr Ma asked the price offered to see if CKA could match, Mr Pan asked CKA to make him an offer. He also expressed an interest to collaborate with CKA on the HMT Project. 71.On 15 December 2020, Mr Ma sent a voice message to Mr Pan. Mr Ma intimated he had received confirmation that the cooperation plan favoured by his boss Mr Victor Li (“Mr Li”) was for the 1st Defendant to novate the HMT Project to CKA, which would lend its name to the project, develop the project, negotiate with MTRC and sell the units and thereafter, CKA and the 1st Defendant would share the proceeds. Mr Ma also said Mr Pan could develop the HMT Project himself but if he were to cooperate with, or sell the project to, a third party, Mr Li’s view was that the ROFR Deed would be followed, and CKA would decide whether to match the terms. 72.On 18 December 2020, Mr Ma repeated in another voice message to Mr Pan that if Mr Pan received any other offer, CKA would follow the ROFR Deed and decide whether to match the terms. 73.On 8 January 2021, upon Mr Pan’s request, Mr Ma caused a one-page document to be sent to Mr Pan outlining the proposed terms of cooperation between CKA and the 1st Defendant in respect of the HMT Project and another development. Ensuing discussion focused only on the HMT Project, which led to the parties signing the CK Heads of Agreement on 15 January 2021. 74.The Ranking Issue was foreshadowed in both the one-page outline and the CK Heads of Agreement. In the former, it was stated the cooperation would be subject to “reaching agreement with MTRC and [IB] on commercial terms, including but not limited to…priority of payment of sales proceeds, security etc.”. In the latter, a condition precedent to further definitive agreements was said to be “reaching agreement…or consent from MTRC and other relevant stakeholders respectively on level and commercial terms, including but not limited to…priority of payment of sales proceeds and security in relation to other creditors and stakeholders etc., which are acceptable to all relevant parties.” 75.As mentioned at §19 above, after signing the CK Heads of Agreement, negotiations between CKA, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, MTRC and IB ensued. All parties concerned were serious commercial entities with substantial businesses. Mr Ma appeared to be the main contact point for CKA and the Plaintiff in the negotiation process whereas Mr Pan was the main negotiator for the 1st Defendant’ side. The two gentlemen were clearly experienced businessmen adept at commercial negotiations, and the associated considerations and dynamics. Notably, in Mr Ma’s unchallenged evidence, Mr Pan was described as a tough negotiator who pushed the envelope. 76.For present purposes, on around 26 January 2021, CKA and the Plaintiff began negotiating with the 1st Defendant and IB on the Ranking Issue. CKA and the Plaintiff requested that repayment of CKA’s funding to be made in the HMT Project (such as construction costs) should rank before the IB Facilities. On 30 January 2021, Mr Shek texted Mr Ma to say that Mr Pan and Mr Shek went to meet IB the day before to discuss the Ranking Issue, and IB intimated it was only prepared to give priority up to a cap of HK$4 billion. Mr Ma replied “we just wait”. 77.On 1 February 2021:
78.As mentioned at §§23 to 24 above, the Ranking Issue was referred to in the revised proposal sent to MTRC on 1 February 2021, and MTRC wrote back on 4 February 2021 to say the revision on the priority was unacceptable. It should be said that IB’s proposal that CKA’s priority over it should be capped at HK$6 billion was also included in the draft. 79.On 4 February 2021 at 11:39, Mr Ma sent a voice message to Mr Pan to say Mr Li had seen MTRC’s letter of even date and that CKA’s stance remained the same, i.e. waiting for IB’s reply as IB told CKA yesterday the matter was under discussion in Beijing (i.e. IB’s headquarters). Mr Ma also said that if MTRC could not wait for IB’s response then so be it, and it would be up to Mr Pan whether or not to pay the HK$1B Payment Obligation. Even if the 1st Defendant were to default, Mr Ma said that according to CKA’s reading of the terms of the MTRC Development Agreement there would still be 30 days to discuss the matter further. D4b. 4 Feb Meeting 80.It was against the aforesaid context that the 4 Feb Meeting took place (i.e. the second occasion in which the 1st Defendant said Mr Ma made statements constituting the Representations). Having carefully considered the entire transcript of the voice recording that Mr Pan had taken and heard the recording, I note the following germane points. 81.At the start of the recording, Mr Ma discussed what would happen if the 1st Defendant defaulted on the HK$1B Payment Obligation. Mr Pan replied Mr Ma knew that Mr Pan could pay if necessary, so Mr Ma should focus on discussing the Ranking Issue, and in particular the cap to be imposed on any senior ranking that CKA would enjoy over IB. Mr Pan also said that CKA’s request for a HK$7 billion cap had been reported to IB, but IB had approved a cap of HK$6 billion already. It was in that context that Mr Ma said: “欸，我地嘅立場由頭到尾無變過，就係我地入黎協助嘅呢係要收左我地嘅錢同回報我地先至派嘅。如果你話70 億其實就差唔多係個Budget 啦，差唔多就係個本啦，咁我今朝試呢，就係淨係個本呢就唔得嘅，咁所以要個本加一半利息或者6 XXX…10%呀嗎？當10%好過啦。當收左本，即係你當70 億啦，加六個，跟住銀行本，跟住我地4 個跟住銀行咁樣，咁呢個，如果，我覺得呢…你揸住呢個呢你咪就搵第二個發展商去跟囉。好過我地嫁一定，好過我地同第二個做啦，唔嘥你時間，我覺得，我今日係呢，我揸到口乾啦，你畀我係老闆呢我做左嫁啦吓，你嗰個建議梅花間竹我都做左嫁啦， Cap 60 億我都做左，但我唔係老闆，咁呀老闆基本上個原則，大佬我入黎幫手做我一定要咁樣，咁我今朝唯一試到佢就話，至多收唔足10%啦…” 82.Thus, objectively understood, instead of saying CKA and the Plaintiff would walk away from the HMT Project or would give up any rights under the ROFR Deed, Mr Ma was saying that it was his boss Mr Li who insisted the HK$7 billion cap and that if it were up to him (Mr Ma), he would have agreed to the HK$6 billion cap or even IB’s other proposal. Mr Ma also intimated that he tested waters with Mr Li, who might (according to Mr Ma) be amenable to not insisting on priority for the entire portion of interest. 83.Relevantly, Mr Ma then said IB should provide CKA with a final proposal on the Ranking Issue that IB headquarters in Beijing had approved. Mr Lee replied that IB would not do that, as the proposal kept changing during the negotiation process. What followed were these exchanges:
84.Mr Pan clearly did not take Mr Ma’s statement (that it would be best for the Defendants to seek out another party) literally. This is evidenced by Mr Pan’s question to Mr Ma whether CKA would not accept the terms as then proposed by IB. 85.Further, as evidenced by Mr Ma then asking Mr Pan to offer him another condition or term (which in my view objectively meant asking Mr Pan to offer a concession for CKA to consider), Mr Ma was not saying CKA or the Plaintiff would walk away either. Mr Ma said if IB agreed to rank after CKA, CKA might consider paying a maximum of HK$3 to 3.3 billion. That was clearly a reference to IB’s first proposal mentioned in Mr Lee’s email to Mr Chow on 1 February 2021 at 12:41. Mr Ma’s suggested figures were significantly lower than IB’s proposed figure of HK$4.5 billion. Mr Lee understood Mr Ma was referring to IB’s first proposal, and intimated IB would probably not consider Mr Ma’s suggested figures. 86.A little while later, the following exchange took place:
87.After some further discussions, Mr Lee reiterated IB’s proposal, but qualified it by saying: “因為馬生，其實銀行咁大個機構呢，如果你話你哋集團嗰邊係confirm 呢個 deal 你會take 嘅，咁我哋就好意思再搵到真係headquarter 最大嗰啲人，因為如果你話而家大家yes or no…大家一樣嘅，將心比己，咁我哋老闆都唔敢去到搵到總行行長，跟住最尾佢話OK 啦，撳咗落嚟 (Mr Ma: 所以之前我咪話…) 跟住聽日問你你做唔做㗎，咁你又話喂我唔知呀，咁…” 88.To which Mr Ma replied: “即係，嗱，我問咗，跟住你哋返轉頭，即係你未有白紙黑字㗎嘛，你返轉頭你話68 ，咁啊又唔到我嘅問題啦，大家都…” and finally “你變咗end up 可能係掟可能佐筆錢落去stakeholder 嗰度，咁地鐵制唔制，一陣佢又可能唔制嗰啲咁野…唔緊要啦，我覺得99%我哋唔得㗎喇，所以我返去轉頭即刻打返去問下啦好無”. 89.Objectively construed, it is obvious from the exchanges above that Mr Ma was trying to extract a formal written proposal from IB approved by its headquarters in Beijing setting out the terms of the Ranking Issue,[7] and in particular that the cap would be set at HK$7 billion. According to Mr Ma, once that proposal was available, CKA would reply whether it accept or reject that proposal. In other words, Mr Ma was trying to force IB to commit to a position on the Ranking Issue without committing CKA one way or the other. On the other hand, Mr Lee also refused to commit that the cap would be HK$7 billion. Mr Pan understood the situation and in the presence of Mr Ma asked Mr Lee to issue the formal written proposal as requested. But at the same time, Mr Pan asked Mr Ma to confirm with Mr Li whether he would accept the HK$7 billion cap. Mr Pan also told Mr Ma that Mr Li should confirm one way or the other otherwise Mr Pan would approach other third parties. Mr Ma said he would ask Mr Li but he (Mr Ma) personally felt that Mr Li would not accept. 90.Critically, immediately after Mr Ma had left the 4 Feb Meeting, Mr Pan said the following to Mr Shek and Mr Lee:
91.Thus, Mr Pan appreciated that notwithstanding all that Mr Ma had said at the 4 Feb Meeting, there was in his estimation a 99% chance that Mr Ma’s side would say yes to the HMT Project at the end as it was an attractive project for a new developer coming in. Mr Pan also understood that Mr Ma was using the potential default of the HK$1B Payment Obligation (due on 9 February 2021) as leverage in the negotiations, but he considered he had succeeded in forcing Mr Ma into a dead end. D4c. After 4 Feb Meeting 92.The third to fifth occasions in which Mr Ma was said to have made the Representations occurred after the 4 Feb Meeting. For the third occasion, at 18:14 on 4 February 2021, Mr Ma sent Mr Pan a voice message that CKA cannot accept the IB’s proposal as discussed during the 4 Feb Meeting. See §65 above. 93.Regarding the fourth occasion, I would draw attention to these exchanges:
94.As to the fifth occasion, the 1st Defendant relied on Mr Ma’s two voice messages to Mr Pan at 18:45 and 22:57 on 6 February 2021. But Mr Pan’s response between the two messages forms part of the important context:
95.Bearing in mind the context of the exchanges at the 4 Feb Meeting, it seems to me that objectively viewed on these three occasions (especially the fourth and fifth), both Mr Ma and Mr Pan maintained their respective stance. On the one hand, Mr Ma continued to say CKA would not agree to IB’s proposal as discussed at the 4 Feb Meeting. In this regard, there is no evidence that IB gave any written confirmation that the cap would be fixed at HK$7 billion as was mentioned at that meeting. On the other hand, Mr Pan understood that CKA was not really walking away from the HMT Project. This is evidenced by Mr Pan (a) asking whether CKA would do the HMT Project if he were to pay the HK$1B Payment Obligation and (b) saying he wanted to talk to Mr Ma about what appears to be another project. Likewise, it appears to me Mr Shek was also testing CKA when he asked Mr Ma whether he could try one last time to make the impossible possible. D4d. Analysis 96.Ms Leung’s main argument comprised of two components. First, she argued that objectively viewed from Mr Pan’s standpoint at the material time, it was plainly reasonable for him to have understood Mr Ma to be saying that the Plaintiff had decided it would not participate in the HMT Project. Second, it followed, as the argument went, such refusal to partake in the HMT Project would only be consistent with and extend to the Plaintiff giving up its rights under the ROFR Deed. Counsel contended that objectively understood from Mr Pan’s point of view the two components cannot be separated. 97.With respect, her submission fails to clear the first hurdle. Its first component (i.e. Mr Pan understood Mr Ma to say the Plaintiff had decided it would not participate in the HMT Project) is contradicted by Mr Pan’s statement to Mr Shek and Mr Lee immediately after Mr Ma had left the 4 Feb Meeting to the effect he knew all that Mr Ma had said was for negotiation purposes and that there was a 99% chance that Mr Ma’s side would say yes to the HMT Project. That statement gives context to the purpose of Mr Pan’s voice message to Mr Ma at 18:58 on 6 February 2021 and his understanding of the situation, viz: he believed CKA would likely say yes despite all that Mr Ma had said, and was testing CKA’s stance by offering other terms. 98.It follows the second component (i.e. Mr Pan understood the Plaintiff’s refusal to partake in the HMT Project would extend to it giving up its rights under the ROFR Deed), which on Ms Leung’s own argument flows from the first component, is unsustainable. 99.In any case, at no point in the five occasions relied upon by the 1st Defendant did Mr Ma mention the ROFR Deed or the Plaintiff’s right of first refusal arising therefrom. Nor did he promise the Plaintiff would not exercise such right in the future or represented that the Plaintiff would forgo such right, which seems to me to be the vital representation that the 1st Defendant needs to establish in order to successfully set up its estoppel / waiver defence. 100.In this regard, during cross examination, Mr Ma told the Court that (a) he had reminded Mr Pan about the ROFR Deed at dinner on 5 January 2021 and (b) every time Mr Pan said that other parties were interested in the HMT Project, he would remind Mr Pan of the ROFR Deed. Ms Leung contrasted that with the five occasions where no one mentioned the ROFR Deed, and submitted that Mr Ma had made up the evidence in the witness box. 101.On the evidence, it is not disputed that on 15 and 18 December 2020, i.e. shortly before the parties commenced discussions leading to the CKA Heads of Agreement, Mr Ma specifically informed Mr Pan that CKA would follow the ROFR Deed if a third-party proposal regarding the HMT Project were to emerge. Mr Ma’s impugned statements were made in the context of the parties’ negotiation to cooperate under the framework of the CKA Heads of Agreement. Further, Mr Pan was a signatory of the ROFR Deed. As such, and being the experienced businessman Mr Pan was, he should not require further reminders. Given the circumstances, it would be unreasonable and counterintuitive to take the lack of mention of the ROFR Deed in the five occasions to mean the Plaintiff has given up its rights under the ROFR Deed. 102.I also do not accept Ms Leung’s submission that Mr Ma’s statements made in the five occasions were unequivocal statements – as they would only be consistent with the outcome – that the Plaintiff would forgo or waive its rights under the ROFR Deed. As Ms Tong rightly submitted, a representation that the Defendants should seek out another partner was consistent (or was not inconsistent) with the Plaintiff’s rights under the ROFR Deed as the ROFR Deed did not impose any exclusivity obligation which would prohibit the Defendants from entering into preliminary discussion with third parties. Indeed, without such discussions, no third-party proposal could emerge to trigger the Plaintiff’s right of first refusal under the ROFR Deed. 103.Further, I accept Mr Ma’s viva voce evidence that his statements that the 1st Defendant now relies on were made pursuant to the Plaintiff’s negotiation strategy, which was to take an aggressive stance to try to extract the maximum benefit or concessions from the counter-parties. His evidence, which I accept, was that this strategy was heavily shaped by the existence of the ROFR Deed as the Plaintiff could afford to be more aggressive than it would otherwise be if it did not have the ROFR Deed. I further accept that Mr Pan knew Mr Ma’s statements were made as part of the negotiation posturing or strategy. 104.I have not lost sight of Ms Leung’s warning that Mr Ma’s evidence that his statements were part of a negotiation strategy, and he was testing the Defendants’ bottom line, might be self-serving. She also reminded me that what matters in the present case is what Mr Pan objectively understood Mr Ma’s statements to mean, and not what Mr Ma subjectively thought his statements meant at the material time. I have also considered counsel’s submissions seeking to cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of Mr Ma’s evidence. 105.But it seems to me Mr Ma’s evidence under discussion is borne out by the exchanges at the material times (recorded contemporaneously before dispute broke) especially those made during the 4 Feb Meeting, which I have drawn attention to above. These exchanges also demonstrated that objectively speaking, a reasonable recipient of Mr Ma’s statements with the business acumen of Mr Pan would have understood that those statements were made for negotiation or posturing purposes. Notably:
106.Ms Leung countered by referring me to Mr Pan’s and Mr Ma’s exchange via voice messages on 9 February 2021. She said they showed two things: first, Mr Ma’s requests for a Proposal Notice in light of the GE Transaction were made in an “apologetic tone” when he said the requests were mere formalities requested by the legal department of which he had no control of; and second, Mr Pan expressed “genuine surprise” when Mr Ma mentioned about the Plaintiff’s rights under the ROFR Deed. She argued the messages supported her contention that Mr Pan had reasonably understood that the Plaintiff had finally decided to walk away from the HMT Project and to forgo or waive its rights under the ROFR Deed. 107.I am unable to accept that submission. As Ms Tong pointed out, it was never put to Mr Ma that his messages were apologetic in tone. I also agree with her that there is no evidence to support the contention that Mr Pan was genuinely surprised on 9 February 2021 especially given he did not give evidence. Further, bearing in mind the evidence that Mr Pan had said only 5 days earlier that he thought there was a 99% chance that Mr Ma’s side would agree to the HMT Project, and the absence of evidence of any change of circumstances in the intervening period, it seems to me that Mr Pan’s messages cannot be taken at face value. 108.Next, Ms Leung argued that given the imminent risk of the Defendants defaulting the HK$1B Payment Obligation due on 9 February 2021, it was reasonable for Mr Pan to understand Mr Ma’s statements that Mr Pan should seek out another partner for the HMT Project as meaning the Plaintiff would not insist on its rights under the ROFR Deed. It is difficult to see why the Defendants’ potential non-compliance of the MTRC Development Agreement can be said to be relevant. That aside, there is no evidence whether the Defendants were indeed at real risk of default. Mr Pan did not give evidence as to his considerations at the material time. On the other hand, he said during negotiations with Mr Ma that he would be able to pay MTRC. Further, it was one thing whether it was reasonable for Mr Pan to seek back up solutions. It was an entirely different thing whether it was reasonable for him to understand Mr Ma as saying the Plaintiff would not insist on its rights under the ROFR Deed. 109.For these reasons, I find that the 1st Defendant has failed to make out its case that the Plaintiff did make the Representations. It follows the 1st Defendant’s estoppel / waiver defence must fail. 110.It is thus unnecessary for me to determine whether to draw adverse inference against the 1st Defendant in this regard for failing to call Mr Pan or Mr Shek to give evidence. That said, had it been necessary, I would have drawn the adverse inference against the 1st Defendant that objectively viewed Mr Pan did not understand Mr Ma as saying CKA would forgo or waive its rights under the ROFR Deed. 111.The evidence in this regard (as summarized above) clearly called for an answer, especially from Mr Pan. Ms Leung’s explanation for the absence of Mr Pan and Mr Shek, viz Mr Pan did not see eye to eye with the present new management of the 1st Defendant, was inadequate nor satisfactory in the circumstances. To say the least, she was only able to point me to a letter from the 1st Defendant’s solicitors dated 31 July 2025 and an earlier judgment in litigation between the liquidators of Rich Region and Concept Pioneer and Mr Pan. Neither of them provided any substantiation of the steps taken (if any) to procure Mr Pan and/or Mr Shek to give evidence at this trial. I also do not accept Ms Leung’s submission that the Plaintiff could have subpoenaed the two gentlemen as they would be adverse witnesses from the Plaintiff’s perspective. D5. Knowledge 112.There is no dispute that the Plaintiff was unaware of the GE Transaction and its terms prior to the GE Announcement on 9 February 2021. 113.Accordingly, if necessary, I would have found the 1st Defendant has failed to establish its waiver defence because at the material times, the Plaintiff was unaware of (a) the facts that gave rise to the rights being forgone and (b) its right to forgo those rights and (c) the connection between the two. 114.Similarly, given the Plaintiff’s lack of awareness at the material time, I would have found it more likely than not that it did not make a clear and unequivocal promise not to assert its rights under the ROFR Deed. D6. Clause 9.04 of the ROFR Deed 115.Additionally, if necessary, I would have held that on the evidence Mr Ma’s impugned statements were not sufficiently unequivocal, and there was no additional justifying factor other than those statements, to override clause 9.04 of the ROFR Deed. E. IMPLIED TERMS E1. The parties’ case 116.The 1st Defendant claims the Plaintiff was in breach of the 1st to 3rd Implied Terms, which were implicated into the ROFR Deed by necessity to give business efficacy to the common purpose of the ROFR Deed to enable or ensure the continuity of the MTRC Development Agreement and the HMT Project (“Alleged Common Purpose”). 117.More specifically, the 1st Implied Term is that the ROFR Deed is subject to the Condition Subsequent that:
118.As for the 2nd Implied Term, it is to the effect that the Plaintiff was ready, willing and able to (a) take over the HMT Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the MTRC Development Agreement, including the meeting of the Payment Obligation and/or (b) observe the Financing Terms (or otherwise to effect a Proper Discharge), in the event of the Plaintiff’s Participation in the Development. 119.For the 3rd Implied Term, it is to the effect that the Plaintiff, in exercising its rights and powers conferred by the ROFR Deed, must do so in good faith and not exercise the same arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably. 120.On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s case is that:
E2. Law on implied terms 121.The relevant legal principles are well-established. The default position is that nothing is to be implied into a contract. The more detailed and apparently complete the contract, the stronger this presumption: Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts (8th Ed), §§6.45 to 6.49; UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 2322 (Ch) at §206 (Fancourt J). 122.In order for a term to be implied, it must comply with these conditions: (a) it must be reasonable and equitable; (b) it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; (c) it must be so obvious that “it goes without saying”; (d) it must be capable of clear expression; (e) it must not contradict any express terms of the contract: Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment Ltd (2001) 4 HKCFAR 381 at §23 (Ribeiro PJ); Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2016] AC 742 at §21 (Lord Neuberger PSC); Golden Miles §§192-194. 123.The legal test for implication of a term is a stringent one of strict necessity. A term is to be implied only if, without the term, the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence. Necessity is not established by showing that the contract would be improved by the addition. See Re BGA Holdings Ltd [2025] 2 HKLRD 1113 at §55-57 (Kwan VP). 124.An implied duty to act in good faith and not to act arbitrarily, capriciously or irrationally applies only where the contract confers upon a party a discretion that involves “making an assessment or choosing from a range of options, taking into account the interests of both parties”. Such a duty is not implicated to an absolute contractual right, which involves a party making a “simple decision whether or not to exercise” that right. See Falcon Insurance Co (Hong Kong) Ltd v ISP Holdings Ltd [2023] 2 HKLRD 901 at §46 (Peter Ng J); Habib Bank Zurich (Hong Kong) Ltd v Creation Castle Limited [2020] HKCFI 1062 at §§64-67 (DHCJ Dawes SC, as he then was). 125.Under Hong Kong law, no general obligation of good faith is implied into contacts. An obligation of good faith exists only where the parties are in some kind of fiduciary relationship, such as that between parties to an insurance contract, partnership contract or employment contract. See Golden Miles §191; GDH Limited v Creditor Co Ltd [2008] 5 HKLRD 895 at §67 (DHCJ To). E3. Analysis 126.The ROFR Deed contained detailed provisions. It appears it was professionally drafted. Hence, there is a presumption in favour of the default position that nothing is implied. Be that as it may, for reasons adumbrated below, it is my judgment that the 1st Defendant has failed to establish its case on the implied terms. 127.First, the 1st Defendant’s plea regarding the Alleged Common Purpose, which is foundational to its case on the implied terms, must fail. It has not adduced any supporting evidence. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s evidence, which Ms Leung did not challenge, was that the ROFR Deed was one of CKA’s conditions for the Smart Edge Facility, as it was keen on the HMT Project, and Mr Pan agreed to give the right of first refusal as an appreciation of CKA’s agreement to grant the Smart Edge Facility. 128.The Alleged Common Purpose also appears to be contrary to the express terms in the ROFR Deed as the essence of the right of first refusal conferred upon the Plaintiff is that it may opt either to exercise that right or not to exercise that right, say if it considers the terms of the third-party proposal to be unattractive. In the latter scenario, whether the HMT Project would continue (or whether it would continue under the terms of the MTRC Development Agreement) would be the least of the Plaintiff’s concern. 129.Second and similarly, the 1st and 2nd Implied Terms appear to be contrary to the express terms of the ROFR Deed in that both alleged implied terms are predicated on the Plaintiff exercising its right of first refusal whereas the Plaintiff is equally entitled under the ROFR Deed to opt not to exercise that right. 130.Even under the scenario where the Plaintiff exercises its right of first refusal, the 1st and 2nd Implied Terms are:
131.Third, the 3rd Implied Term is unsustainable at law. The right of first refusal is an absolute contract right in that whether or not the Plaintiff exercises that right would be a matter for it based on what would be in its best interest instead of based on an assessment of a range of options taking into account its and the Defendants’ respective interests. The Plaintiff is not the Defendants’ fiduciary either. Therefore, a general duty of good faith cannot be implied. 132.Fourth, I also reject Ms Leung’s submission that the 1st to 3rd Implied Terms may be implied on the basis that there is a duty to cooperate or by reason of the preventive principle. Neither the duty to cooperate nor the preventive principle has been pleaded. F. BREACH 133.There is no dispute that the GE Transaction under the GE Heads of Agreement constituted an Economic Right Transaction under the ROFR Deed, but the Defendants did not provide any Proposal Notice in respect thereof to the Plaintiff. As the 1st Defendant’s defences have failed, there is no question that it was in breach of the ROFR Deed. G. CAUSATION G1. The parties’ case 134.The Plaintiff claims against the 1st Defendant for loss of a chance to (a) be novated as the new developer of the HMT Project on terms substantially the same as the GE Transaction and (b) profit from the HMT Project. It claims that had a Proposal Notice regarding the GE Transaction been served on it pursuant to the ROFR Deed, it would have elected to exercise its right of first refusal and MTRC and IB would have consented to its participation in the HMT Project. 135.The 1st Defendant’s case is it was highly improbable the Plaintiff would have exercised its right of first refusal given that (a) Mr Ma’s repeated statements that the Plaintiff would not take over the HMT Project if the Ranking Issue cannot be resolved in its favour and (b) under the GE Transaction IB ranked ahead of the new developer. It also claims there is no evidence that MTRC and IB would have agreed to the Plaintiff’s take over of the HMT Project. 136.I should also add that the 1st Defendant did not plead mitigation defence, or any particulars of facts on which it may rely on to support such a defence. The burden is on a defendant to plead and prove a mitigation defence. See O.18 r.12(1)(c) of the Rules of the High Court; Wang Ruiyun v Gem Global Yield Fund Ltd [2011] 3 HKLRD 785 at §§28-30 (Cheung JA); Goldbay Fortis v Rich Resources Development Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1684 at §§334-335 (Keith Yeung J). If the defendant fails to show that the plaintiff ought reasonably to have taken certain mitigating steps, then the normal measure will apply: McGregor on Damages (22nd Ed) §10-020. G2. Law on loss of a chance 137.Counsel agreed on the applicable legal principles. Loss of a chance is an identifiable head of loss. In cases where a plaintiff’s loss depends upon the hypothetical action of a third party, whether in addition to action by the plaintiff or independently of it, the plaintiff must establish two hypotheticals: first, what the plaintiff would have done had the breach not occurred and second, whether a third party would have acted in a particular way so as to benefit the plaintiff: Goldbay Fortis at §§314-315. 138.As regards to the first hypothetical, what the plaintiff would have done had the breach not occurred is a matter of inference to be determined in all the circumstances. The threshold is that on a balance of probability the plaintiff would have taken action to obtain the benefit or avoid the risk. The plaintiff’s evidence, whilst important, may not be believed, especially where there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Where the action required of the plaintiff is clearly for his benefit, the Court will have little difficulty in concluding that he would have taken it. See Goldbay Fortis §316; Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602 at 1610D-G (Stuart Smith LJ). 139.As for the second hypothetical, where the plaintiff claims that, in the absence of the defendant’s breach, the third party would have acted in a particular way so as to benefit the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not prove that hypothetical act would have occurred on the balance of probability. The plaintiff need only show a “real” or “substantial” (as opposed to “speculative”) chance of that act resulting (usually as a percentage) and then discount the plaintiff’s damages for his loss by reference to that percentage. See Goldbay Fortis §317; Allied Maples 1614D. 140.When quantifying the value of the chance lost, the Court carries out a broad brush and pragmatic evaluative exercise. There is no minimum percentage for a real or substantial chance although it could be less than likely or less than 50%. The Court has resisted laying down a minimum, but it will not usually be convinced to make awards for say a 2 to 3 percent chance. There are also authorities that less than 10 percent chance is not a real or substantial chance. On the other end of the spectrum, if the plaintiff would almost certainly, but for the wrong, have received the benefit or avoided the harm, the Court will award 100 percent of the loss. In such a case, the damages will not be reduced for unreal or insubstantial chance. However, unless the Court is “certain or very close to certain”, it should discount the award of damages “to take into account the uncertainty”. See Allied Maples 1611H-1612A, 1613D-1614G; Kramer, The Law of Contract Damages (3rd Ed), §§13-101 to 13-102; McGregor, §§11-048 to 11-50, 11-054 to 11-055, 11-064. G3. First hypothetical (i.e. whether the Plaintiff would have exercised its right of first refusal if served with a Proposal Notice) 141.Ms Tong’s first point was that CKA and the Plaintiff had always taken a keen interest in the HMT Project and that the internal assessment at the material time was that the project would be profitable. 142.In this regard, Mr Ma’s unchallenged evidence – which I accept – was that the location of the HMT Project above the Ho Man Tin MTR Station was a main attraction as generally speaking, residential units above MTR stations have always enjoyed strong market demand. According to Mr Ma, CKA did in fact put in a bid for the HMT Project although it was ultimately unsuccessful. Mr Ma also explained that in 2021 (during the COVID pandemic), the HMT Project was a particularly attractive project for developers such as CKA as MTRC did not issue any new tenders for its development projects. That CKA and the Plaintiff made the effort they did to negotiate the CK Heads of Agreement is another indication of keen interest. 143.As for CKA’s internal assessment, both Mr Ma and Mr Chow explained that in early 2021, CKA internally assessed that when completed, the units in the HMT Project would be sold for above HK$30,000 sq ft, and probably even around HK$32,000 to 33,000 per sq ft. The project would thus be profitable as the estimated profits generated would be sufficient to allow all parties concerned (including CKA and IB) to recover its investment and return in full. More specifically:
144.Ms Leung’s response was that the Plaintiff would not exercise the right of first refusal as from CKA’s perspective, IB’s refusal to rank after CKA would be a deal breaker. She referred to the evidence where Mr Ma repeatedly stated that if IB refused to concede on the Ranking Issue, CKA would not agree. She also produced financial simulations (“D1’s Simulations”) based on Mr Chow’s two financial simulations to try to bolster her case that the Ranking Issue was critical and a deal breaker for CKA if it did not get its way. 145.In terms of Mr Ma’s statements, Ms Leung submitted that if Mr Ma did not mean what he had said (in that the Ranking Issue was in truth irrelevant as the expected profits from the HMT Project would be sufficient to fully satisfy both CKA and IB), there was no point in insisting on the Ranking Issue and risk losing the HMT Project. 146.Quite apart from the fact that I have found that objectively viewed the statements were made as part of Mr Ma’s negotiation tactics or posturing, and that a reasonable recipient in Mr Pan’s position would not have taken them at face value, and that Mr Pan did not do so (see section D4 above), I am unable to agree with Ms Leung’s submission. 147.Mr Ma explained in the witness box that CKA considered it was in a strong negotiating position given it was essentially being asked by Mr Pan’s side to provide assistance and pick up the mess (執爛攤子) by taking over and completing the HMT Project. Therefore, CKA wanted to extract the maximum benefit from the counterparties in the negotiations. One manifestation of the benefit would be to get repaid first before IB. In Mr Ma’s own words, even when everyone will get paid, it is better to get paid first. In my view, his evidence accords with commercial common sense. 148.I also accept his evidence that CKA could afford to be more aggressive because it could fall back on the ROFR Deed, and if MTRC were to terminate the MTRC Development Agreement, to bid in the re-tender. Ms Leung did not challenge Mr Ma’s evidence that in a re-tender, MTRC’s terms (when compared to those in the MTRC Development Agreement) would be more favourable from the perspective of a developer as it would be asked to complete an unfinished project. 149.My view is reinforced by the objective evidence, which showed that a reasonable person involved in the relevant negotiations at the material times would have appreciated that the estimated selling price of the completed units of the HMT Project (i.e. in the region of HK$30,000 per sq ft) meant it was unlikely that the Ranking Issue was going to be a deal breaker.
150.Turning to D1’s Simulations, they simulate the estimated profits from the HMT Project based on different selling prices that range from HK$22,500 per sq ft to HK$12,330 per sq ft. Ms Leung fairly accepted the prices used were not based on evidence or any expert estimation. Instead, as I understand from Ms Leung’s cross-examination of Mr Chow, the purpose of D1’s Simulations (and the different prices adopted therein) was to demonstrate that (a) if the selling price were to fall below a certain threshold, the Plaintiff or some other parties (including IB) might run the risk of not being able to break even and (b) therefore the Ranking Issue was critical. 151.Ms Leung put to Mr Chow who agreed that based on D1’s Simulation (a) if IB were to rank first, the “breakeven” point (i.e. the Plaintiff would recover all its costs plus its required return in full) would be in the region of HK$22,300 per sq ft (b) but if CKA were to rank first, the “breakeven” point would be as low as HK$12,000 per sq ft. Mr Chow’s evidence was that he did not consider such low figures at the material time as he thought it was reasonable to adopt HK$25,000 per sq ft as the worst case scenario. 152.Ms Leung criticized Mr Chow’s evidence. Counsel submitted it was unreasonable that Mr Chow did not run different financial simulations to determine the “breakeven” point given Mr Chow accepted that (a) residential property market fluctuates and (b) since COVID-19 and up to 2025, property prices had experienced a reduction of approximately 20%. It seems to me Ms Leung’s point was that contrary to Mr Chow’s evidence, CKA did in fact know what the “breakeven” point was, which was why it insisted on ranking ahead of IB. According to Ms Leung, Mr Chow said what he did to support the Plaintiff’s case theory that the Ranking Issue was not a deal breaker. 153.However, what I am presently concerned with is to assess on the balance of probability what the Plaintiff would have done in February 2021. As mentioned, the evidence showed that at the material time all parties concerned considered the selling price of the completed units of the HMT Project would be in the region of HK$30,000 per sq ft, and therefore all parties concerned would be able to fully recover their investment and return irrespective of ranking. Granted, completion was still some years away and the market might rise or fall in the interim. But Mr Chow’s undisputed evidence was that based on historical data a drop of 20% over 3 years (i.e. from HK$30,000 to HK$24,000 per sq ft) was unlikely. His evidence that an abundance of liquidity and low interest rates in 2021 meant that property prices actually rose also went unchallenged. Given the state of affairs in 2021 when Mr Chow assessed CKA’s risk of entering the HMT Project, I consider that it was not unreasonable for him to disregard the scenario of the selling price going below HK$25,000 per sq ft. I accept Mr Ma’s and Mr Chow’s assessment that CKA’s internal assessment at the material time concluded that the HMT Project was a profitable endeavour. 154.Ms Tong further submitted that the Plaintiff would have exercised its right of first refusal to take up the HMT Project on essentially the same terms as the GE Transaction because those terms were more attractive than the terms in CKA’s proposal. She submitted that under the former set of terms, the Plaintiff’s profits would likely have been even higher. According to the assessment of the Plaintiff’s expert, the GE Transactions would enable the new developer to profit through earning considerable fees, which was a feature absent from CKA Heads of Agreement. Specifically:
155.Ms Tong accepted that the CKA Heads of Agreement has its merits such as on the Ranking Issue and the level of profit share. But she submitted that on the whole the terms in the GE Transaction were more favourable:
156.On the other hand, Ms Leung submitted the GE Transaction was less favourable and riskier. In the first place, she submitted that the Ranking Issue was critical to CKA as it did not want to take the risk if the selling price of the completed units fall below HK$22,300 per sq ft. Second, she submitted that the Annual Fees might be illusory because the 1st Defendant was a special purpose vehicle and in case of insufficient funds left in its share to offset any unpaid Annual Fees (under clause 6.2(a) of the GE Definitive Agreement), the Plaintiff would not receive a dime beyond what would be available from the sales proceeds. 157.I accept Ms Tong’s submissions and reject Ms Leung’s submissions. Specifically regarding clause 6.2(a) of the GE Definitive Agreement, I agree that it only provides the new developer a right to set-off against any unpaid Annual Fees and interests accrued. The entitlement would not depend on the 1st Defendant’s share of surplus proceeds. Indeed, that clause expressly provides that where the 1st Defendant’s share is insufficient to offset the Annual Fees, the remaining balance shall remain outstanding as a debt owed by the 1st Defendant to the new developer. I also agree with Ms Tong that there is no evidence to support the contention that the 1st Defendant would not be able to pay any unpaid Annual Fees to the new developer. 158.At bottom, the structures of the GE Definitive Agreement and the CK Heads of Agreement were different, and it follows the context and the considerations would be different. As Ms Tong submitted, had the Plaintiff been presented with a Proposal Notice concerning the GE Transaction, the only question it would need to decide would be whether or not to exercise its right of first refusal, and that would turn on whether the terms of the GE Transaction would be profitable. Based on the assessment of the Plaintiff’s expert (and even bearing in mind Ms Leung’s critiques), the profit would on any view be considerable. The Plaintiff’s stance in the earlier negotiations under the CK Heads of Agreement is simply not on point. 159.In the circumstances, I find that on balance the Plaintiff would have exercised its right to first refusal had a Proposal Notice concerning the GE Transaction been presented to it. G4. Second hypothetical (i.e. whether MTRC and IB would have consented to the Plaintiff’s participation) 160.Ms Leung argued that there was no real or substantial chance that MTRC and IB would have consented. She pointed to Mr Ma’s own assessment during the 4 Feb Meeting that even assuming all parties reached an agreement for CKA to take over the HMT Project, MTRC could also say no. She also pointed to Mr Ma’s statement at the 4 Feb Meeting that IB did not have any previous business relationship with CKA or the Plaintiff. 161.On the other hand, Ms Tong submitted that it was never put to either Mr Ma or Mr Chow that MTRC and IB would not have consented to the Plaintiff’s participation in the HMT Project, and hence it was not open to the 1st Defendant to pursue such a case. 162.Be that as it may, the Court must nevertheless consider the evidence and form a view whether there was a real or substantial chance that this second hypothetical would materialize. In my view, there is sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.
163.Having said that, assuming the Plaintiff did exercise its right of first refusal, MTRC would have a choice to collaborate with either the Plaintiff or Great Eagle. I have reminded myself of the evidence of the long and established working relationship between CKA and MTRC. There is also the evidence that in the ensuing negotiations after the CKA Heads of Agreement, MTRC did not reject CKA’s or the Plaintiff’s participation outright. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that it is certain (or very close to certain) that MTRC would have chosen the Plaintiff over Great Eagle. Indeed, MTRC would be under no obligation to pick the Plaintiff. On the other hand, according to Mr Ma, MTRC had decided that it would widen its pool of developers for its projects from only the so-called “big four” developers (including CKA) to include other developers. He attributed that decision to why the Plaintiff was not awarded the HMT Project in the original tender. Considering all the relevant circumstances in the round, it seems to me a discount should be applied to reflect the uncertainty as to whether MTRC would have chosen the Plaintiff as the new developer: see §140 above. Adopting a broadbrush approach, I apply a 30% discount. H. QUANTUM 164.Pursuant to the Order dated 22 December 2021 of Master Kent Yee, the parties were given permission to adduce expert evidence on the quantification of the value of the Plaintiff’s loss of a chance to be novated as the new developer of the HMT Project under the same terms and conditions as the GE Transaction. 165.The day before the Plaintiff’s expert Mr Henry Cheng was due to give evidence, Ms Leung informed me that the 1st Defendant would not call its expert witness and place any reliance on his report. Counsel submitted she would not dispute Mr Cheng’s expertise but would only cross examine him on the bases of his valuation. 166.In the circumstances, Ms Tong submitted, and I agree, the Court is effectively in the same position as where a single joint expert is appointed. That expert’s evidence is there, and being relevant must be taken into account. There is no expert evidence to contradict it. Thus, that expert’s evidence must be weighed up together with all the other evidence to reach a conclusion. Assuming that the expert evidence tendered is not based on wrong assumptions as to the facts, or incredible, it is not likely to be disregarded, but instead accepted. Subject to cross-examination, the single expert’s evidence is likely to prove compelling. The Court may depart from it only in exceptional circumstances and for good reason which must be explained. See Ashdown v Griffin [2017] EWHC 2601 (Ch) §§28-29. H1. Overview of Mr Cheng’s evidence 167.Mr Cheng divided his assessment into two parts. In the first part, he assessed the expected profit of the new developer from the development of the HMT Project pursuant to the terms of the MTRC Development Agreement by the method of cash flow analysis. According to clause 24.1 of the MTRC Development Agreement, from the Disposal Proceeds (i.e. the sale proceeds of the HMT Project), the new developer would receive the following two components:
168.In the second part of the assessment, Mr Cheng assessed the final gain of the new developer under the terms of the GE Definitive Agreement (“Final Gain”). The Final Gain is made up of two components.
169.The Final Gain is then adjusted for the time value of money back to the valuation date (i.e. 24 February 2021). Mr Cheng applied a present value discount of 4% (“PV Discount”) to derive the value of the Final Gain as at the valuation date. 170.It seems to me the 2-stage assessment adopted by Mr Cheng accords with the contractual framework laid down in the MTRC Development Agreement and the GE Definitive Agreement. Ms Leung did not demur. Nor did counsel dispute the valuation date or the 4% PV Discount. In the circumstances, in assessing the quantum, I shall follow the structure outlined above. 171.Further, as the 1st Defendant had opted not to call its expert, Ms Leung understandably had to confine her challenges to Mr Cheng’s assessment to several narrow topics, which I shall identify and discuss below. H2. Stage 1 assessment H2a. Disposal Proceeds 172.Mr Cheng assessed the Disposal Proceeds at HK$21,754,157,338. 173.Ms Leung only challenged one aspect of this assessment, viz the quarterly growth rate of 0.38% from 2021 to 2023 that he applied to the assessment. 174.According to Mr Cheng’s opinion, the growth rate was applied because of the assumptions applied in the assessment that (a) the development of the HMT Project would be completed on 30 June 2024 (b) pre-sale would commence in the 4th quarter of 2023 and (c) cash inflow would be received by the new developer starting from the 1st quarter of 2024. As such, Mr Cheng applied a projection to predict the Disposal Proceeds to be received from the pre-sale. 175.Mr Cheng adopted the quarterly growth rate of 0.38% from 2021 to 2023 having taken into account the following factors:
176.Ms Leung criticized the growth rate adopted by Mr Cheng for disregarding the “undisputed and indisputable fact that Hong Kong went through a period of economic slump between 2021 and 2023”. She submitted that the Court could and should take judicial notice of this. Counsel also complained that Mr Cheng did not take account of the actual Real GDP figures for the period between 2021 and 2023, which were publicly available by the time Mr Cheng produced his report in June 2023. 177.Mr Cheng’s response during cross-examination was that the growth rate adopted was reasonable bearing in mind in particular the data from 2016 to 2021 and his observations on the macroeconomic situation in 2023. He said he did not apply the actual Real GDP figures for the period between 2021 and 2023 because the valuation date was 24 February 2021. 178.It seems to me Ms Leung’s submission is fraught with difficulties. I assume (as it is not absolutely clear from her submission) she was alluding to the COVID-19 pandemic as the cause of the “economic slump between 2021 and 2023”. On that footing, whereas I may take judicial notice of the historical fact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and probably also that it caused severe and sustained disruption to Hong Kong’s economy and everyday life, whether and to what extent the pandemic affected the analysis I am concerned with requires evidence. The 1st Defendant did not adduce any such evidence (including the actual Real GDP figures between 2021 and 2023). Given the situation, Ms Leung understandably did not make any counterproposals as to the rate (if any) that should be applied, and the amount of the Disposal Proceeds. 179.But on the other hand, it was Mr Cheng’s expert opinion that a quarterly growth rate of 0.38% should be applied from 2021 to 2023. He gave supporting reasons. Given, there appears to be some apparent inconsistency in his evidence in that on the one hand he considered the macroeconomic situation in 2023 but on the other hand he did not apply the actual Real GDP figures between 2021 and 2023 citing the valuation date as a reason. However, based on the evidence before me, and bearing in mind the 1st Defendant had elected not to adduce any counter evidence in this regard, I am inclined to the view – with some hesitation – that there is insufficient justification to depart from (let alone reject) Mr Cheng’s assessment on the growth rate. 180.For these reasons, I find the Disposal Proceeds to be in the sum of HK$21,754,157,338. H2b. Deductible Costs 181.Mr Cheng assessed the Deductible Costs to be HK$14,441,494,450. 182.Ms Leung’s only challenge concerned the interest component under the Deductible Costs. That component is governed by clause 24.2(k) of the MTRC Development Agreement. It concerned interest incurred on loans or funds procured by the new developer for the purpose of financing the other components of Deductible Costs under clauses 24.2(a)-(j). 183.Specifically, Ms Leung only challenged Mr Cheng’s assessment of interests on construction costs. She criticized him for failing to take into account the actual construction costs incurred by Great Eagle / MEL between February 2021 and August 2023 stated in the Financial Report Summaries. Counsel also argued that it was wrong for Mr Cheng to assume a quarterly drawdown of HK$254,450,194 on Facility B for construction costs from the second quarter of 2021 to the third quarter of 2022, and a drawdown of HK$224,836,175 for the fourth quarter of 2022. She complained that the assumption was inconsistent with the Financial Report Summaries, and was contrary to commercial common sense as construction costs would depend on progress of construction and would never be the same (or even roughly the same) every quarter. 184.Having considered Ms Leung’s submissions carefully, I am unable to agree that any of the points raised constitute good reason or exceptional circumstance that would justify departing from (or rejecting) Mr Cheng’s assessment. 185.First, Mr Cheng’s task was to assess the Plaintiff’s loss of a chance to be novated as the new developer of the HMT Project under the same terms and conditions as the GE Transaction. Mr Ma’s unchallenged evidence was that had the novation happened, CKA might have done things differently including inter alia optimizing the layout of flats and/or improving their design. That is understandable. It is probably axiomatic that no two developers would have the same view on how to develop and finance a project. It is also likely that the constructions costs would differ. Thus, the manner and timing in which Great Eagle / MEL had incurred construction costs is not necessarily relevant. 186.Second, it seems to me Mr Cheng’s explanations for not adopting the Financial Report Summaries are not without foundation. His evidence was that the document was only provided to him shortly before the due date of the Joint Expert Report. He was unsure about the source of the document. He did not know whether it was audited. No particulars or breakdown were provided to support the figures stated therein. 187.Third, Mr Cheng accepted that in reality, the amount of construction costs incurred could not have been evenly distributed across all quarters. He agreed that the actual sum incurred would depend on the particular stage of construction. According to Mr Cheng, usually the construction costs at the initial stage would be lower. That said, he explained that for valuation purposes, it was correct to assume the constructions costs were evenly spread out, as the interest payable calculated under this approach would be a fair and reasonable approximation of the reality. I accept that evidence. 188.Fourth, I also accept Mr Cheng’s evidence that it would be appropriate for valuation purposes to assess interest from the date of drawdown rather than the date the construction costs were paid or incurred. After all, the Court is concerned with assessing the interest on loans procured to finance construction costs. The date the construction costs were paid or incurred appears to be irrelevant. Further, it appears not unreasonable for a new developer to draw down the relevant loan before the relevant construction costs were actually incurred or paid. As evident from the GE Definitive Agreement, as at 24 February 2021, the amount drawn down on Facility B exceeded the actual amount of construction costs incurred by a considerable margin. 189.In the circumstances, I find the Deductible Costs to be in the sum of HK$14,441,494,450. H2c. Conclusion under Stage 1 190.It follows from the above that I accept Mr Cheng’s assessment and make the following finding under Stage 1:
H3. Stage 2 assessment 191.The first issue that needs to be resolved is whether the Stage 2 assessment should proceed on the basis that the Plaintiff would continue to utilize the IB Facilities after taking over the HMT Project (i.e. Mr Cheng’s scenario 1) or it would refinance the IB Facilities upon novation using a loan (“Winchesto’s Loan”) provided by Winchesto Finance Company Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of CKA (i.e. Mr Cheng’s scenario 2). 192.In this regard, Mr Ma’s evidence was that had the Plaintiff taken over the HMT Project, it would likely have refinanced the IB Facilities via the Winchesto Loan in order to reduce finance costs and maximize profit margin. This was because as at 24 February 2021 (being the valuation date), the interest charged under the IB Rate exceeded the maximum amount permitted as Deductible Interest under the MTRC Development Agreement, and the Plaintiff would not have been able to recover the difference from the Disposal Proceeds, which would in turn have diminished the Final Gain. On the other hand, the interest rate CKA and/or its subsidiaries/associated companies could reasonably have obtained from banks or financial institutions on the market at the material time to finance the Winchesto Loan would be lower. 193.I accept Mr Ma’s evidence, which was unchallenged. It also accords with commercial common sense in the circumstances to refinance the IB Facilities for the reasons he gave. 194.The second issue is Mr Cheng’s assessment of Annual Fee A. According to clause 5.3(a) of the GE Definitive Agreement, Annual Fee A is a fee payable by the 1st Defendant to the new developer at the rate of 10% per annum on the aggregate amount of further funding provided by the new developer in respect of the HMT Project. Ms Leung’s complaint was that Mr Cheng’s assessment was on the high side when compared with the actual figures for construction costs and professional fees incurred by Great Eagle / MEL as recorded in the Financial Report Summaries. 195.It seems to me Mr Cheng cannot be faulted for not adopting the Financial Report Summaries here for mutatis mutandis the same reasons justifying him disregarding the same document in his assessment for the deductible interest regarding the loan to finance construction costs. Notably, in the absence of actual data concerning the funding for construction costs and professional fees, it seems to me fair and reasonable to assume the amount would be spread out evenly across the relevant period of time. Put differently, I do not consider Ms Leung’s criticisms constitute sufficiently exceptional reasons to depart from (or reject) Mr Cheng’s assessment. 196.For these reasons, I accept Mr Cheng’s assessment and make the following finding under Stage 2 as to the Remaining Balance:
197.I also accept Mr Cheng’s assessment in terms of the principal and interest of Annual Fees A to C as follows:
198.As to “Gold Brilliant’s Verified Equity Funding less the Reduction Amount”, I accept Mr Cheng’s following assessments:
199.In the premises, Mr Cheng’s assessment as to the Final Gain, which I accept, is as follows:
H4. Quantifying the value of the chance lost 200.Applying the 30% discount to reflect the uncertainty as to whether MTRC would have chosen the Plaintiff as the new developer (see §163 above), I assess the value of the Plaintiff’s loss of a chance to be HK$1,574,718,422.90. I. CONCLUSION 201.For all these reasons, I enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant and make the following orders:
Ms. Sara Tong SC leading Mr. Eugene Kwan and Mr. Alex Chan, instructed by WOO KWAN LEE & LO, for the Plaintiff Ms. Joyce Leung and Ms. Kelly Cheng, instructed by Karas So LLP, for the 1st Defendant The 2nd Defendant was unrepresented and absent [1] The 1st Defendant and the Holding Companies are collectively defined as the “Property Group Companies” in the ROFR Deed. [2] Minor stylistic changes, which do not affect the substance, have been applied to the issues identified in the Joint Statement of Agreed Issues. [3] Defence §§25, 27-29, 32-34, 40. [4] Ms Leung confirmed at trial that she was invoking promissory estoppel for her estoppel defence. [5] 128 ER 419. [6] See also Phipson on Evidence (20th Ed), §45-35. [7] This was consonant with what Mr Ma was trying to do in his messages to Mr Pan on 1 February 2021 at 10:07, 10:08 and 12:03, and on 4 February 2021 at 11:39 referred to in §§77 and 79 above. [8] According to the report of the Plaintiff’s expert, the IB Facilities would be refinanced in the first quarter of 2021, and Annual B would be payable to cover the interim between novation and refinancing. [9] See footnote 8 above. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 280/2021