Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Affirmation

  • 30 Jun 2025

    CHAN YUK PING AGNES v. BRAVE SKY MORTGAGE LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2665
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA451/2025

    The borrower failed to raise any triable issue: contemporaneous conduct (regular repayments, exercising ownership, coherent communications, seeking extensions and inviting sale) contradicted claims of incapacity or duress; no evidence the mortgagee knew or ought to have known of incapacity or misrepresentation; the late medical/draft evidence was inadmissible and unjustified; accordingly mortgagee entitled to enforcement and the mirror-image HCA claims were struck out; costs awarded to respondents and summarily assessed despite pending bankruptcy petition.

  • 18 Dec 2024

    ROBERT JOHN FRANCIS BROTHERS AND ANOTHER v. NEW RUI INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 3651
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1215/2024

    The court granted a stay of the Master Appeal until the Court of Appeal delivers judgment in CACV433/2023 because that judgment will decide the common issue of affirmation which is likely determinative of both actions; the application was not premature and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the summons assessed at $55,700.

  • 14 Oct 2024

    FINE VISION OPPORTUNITY III LTD v. XINYUAN REAL ESTATE CO LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2773
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA355/2023

    No triable issue of economic duress because the plaintiff's conduct was commercial bargaining without illegitimate threat; D1 unequivocally affirmed the NPA by its January 2022 email after the Exchange Offer took effect; damages were inadequate given the size and illiquidity of the Sale Notes, therefore specific performance ordered and monetary judgment against guarantors; defendants' counterclaim and amendment summons dismissed.

  • 31 Jan 2024

    XUE BORAN AND ANOTHER v. HUI CHI SUM AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 349
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2493/2018

    On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiffs' coherent, documentary‑corroborated account: the Oral Loan Agreement existed and HK$20,000,000 was advanced; the 1st defendant signed the Loan Note voluntarily; the 2nd defendant's signature on the Loan Note was not proven to have been hers or known to her; the Loan Agreement was signed without duress. The defendants failed to discharge the burden to prove undue influence or duress and are therefore bound by the written instruments; judgment entered for the plaintiffs for the agreed sums and interest.

  • 20 Apr 2022

    GUANGHUA SS HOLDINGS LTD v. LIM YEW CHENG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1052
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1972/2020

    Defendants' assertions of inducement and ignorance of the falsity are not believable in the context of the contemporaneous documents and their conduct; they must have been aware of the true position before executing or by the time of the amendments and thereby affirmed the agreements; lacking credible reliance and having affirmed, the defence of misrepresentation fails and summary judgment is proper.

  • 26 May 2016

    CMW v. WTY

    Citation
    CMW v. WTY
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1064/2016

    Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success, most grounds were new and not raised below, the applicant’s delay in seeking to file affirmation was inordinate and inexcusable and would have derailed the trial, and the judge’s case management decision and costs order were within discretion and not shown to be plainly wrong.

  • 21 Feb 2014

    HAU HON SHEK v. CHUNG FU CHEUNG

    Citation
    HAU HON SHEK v. CHUNG FU CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1731/2011

    The master erred in striking out the defendant's affirmation; on a de novo hearing the alleged misstatement of address was not established on contested affirmation evidence, did not affect identification of the deponent or the conduct of the claim, was capable of rectification, and striking out would risk inconsistency with a separate hearing on noncompliance with an unless order, therefore the appeal is allowed and the affirmation should not be struck out.

  • 4 Jan 2013

    NEW CENTURY CHINA RESOURCES LTD v. CHU WING MING

    Citation
    NEW CENTURY CHINA RESOURCES LTD v. CHU WING MING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP812/2010

    The plaintiff obtained the reliefs sought (production of records and filing of a further affirmation) largely by consent and the defendant provided significant assistance; the Court could not reliably predict the outcome of a contested trial on disputed factual affirmations and the plaintiff failed to prove loss and damage caused by the defendant, therefore it was just to dismiss the plaintiff's additional remedies (undertaking and damages) and order that each party bear their own costs.

  • 21 Sept 2012

    LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD

    Citation
    LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1612/2010

    The court accepted evidence that the plaintiff knew of the user restriction (advised by consultant Wong and from landlord interactions) before entering the tenancy and therefore did not rely on any alleged misrepresentation; plaintiff repudiated the tenancy by failing to pay rent and fees, defendant validly set off the HK$66,000 deposit and is entitled to the balance of arrears with interest and costs; plaintiff's claim dismissed.

  • 7 Jul 2009

    KNIGHT JOHN LEE v. GLOBAL FORCE LTD t/a THE MIX

    Citation
    KNIGHT JOHN LEE v. GLOBAL FORCE LTD t/a THE MIX
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5534/2007

    Plaintiff failed to prove lack of mental capacity or that signing was caused by unlawful duress; the Deed was voluntarily entered into and, in any event, was affirmed by the plaintiff's conduct and delay; therefore the Deed is binding and plaintiff's claims fail.