Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide purchaser for value without notice

Legal area

Court

24 Apr 2026

GAO YING v. LIN SHUJIA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1753/2024

Plaintiff proved beneficial ownership and unjust enrichment; the 2nd Defendant failed to prove a contractual relationship with the 1st Defendant or that it provided value to the 1st Defendant, the documentary evidence showed USDT transfers from the intermediary preceded or were disconnected from the 2nd Defendant’s receipts so any change of position was not shown to be in reliance on the receipts, and the 2nd Defendant gave nothing for at least one tranche; therefore its defences failed and summary judgment was granted for HK$2,050,000 with interest and costs.
31 Mar 2026

WAH TAI HING FOODS MANUFACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER v. FOK CHIU MING MILTON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA127/2021

The 2nd Defendant received HK$6,419,730.38 from the 1st Defendant and was unjustly enriched at the Plaintiffs' expense. The Exchange Agreement (HKD for RMB transfers) was proven and constituted domestic illegality under AMLO (unlicensed money changing/remittance conducted as a business) and foreign illegality under PRC Forex Regulations (matching balances/disguised sale and purchase under Art.45). Those illegalties negate good faith and bar the defences of bona fide purchaser and change of position with respect to the Exchange Agreement. The tenancy receipts (RMB216,000/HK$244,080) constitute…
23 Mar 2026

金子楷對格萊國際控股有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 452
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP480/2024

The court found the HK$199,900 received by the second defendant was traceable to the plaintiff’s funds misappropriated by fraud, that the receipt constituted unjust enrichment, and the second defendant failed to prove she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly the second defendant was ordered to repay HK$199,900 with interest and to pay the plaintiff’s costs (subject to specified legal aid charge and assessment rules).
12 Feb 2026

CHUGAI PHARMA USA, INC. v. CHENG YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 221
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2025

The judge correctly concluded the appellant's pleaded case and affidavit evidence were not capable of belief given material inconsistencies, lack of contemporaneous documents linking the parties and transfers, and unanswered material queries; therefore there was no real prospect of a triable defence and summary judgment ordering return of the funds and declaring trusts was properly entered and should be affirmed.
12 Jan 2026

ZHU HUAYUE v. LI KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1721/2019

On the balance of probabilities the court found the 2010 sale and 2011 assignment were sham transactions: GB/Gladstrong paid HK$4.5m into Wang’s account and Wang advanced HK$2.2m to complete the stated purchase, Zhu did not provide the purchase money, Zhu signed a Letter of Undertaking acknowledging no beneficial interest, and Zhu was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; illegality did not bar GB's equitable remedy given parity of culpability and public policy considerations, therefore Zhu holds legal title on trust for GB and must transfer the property and comply with ancillar…
12 Jan 2026

GOING BRIGHT LTD v. ZHU HUAYUE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1603/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the 2010 sale and 2011 assignment were sham transactions: the purchase funds principally derived from GB/Gladstrong and an advancement by Wang; title deeds and possession remained with GB/LI; Zhu was aware of and accepted the arrangements (including by signing the Letter of Undertaking) and therefore was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly Zhu holds legal title as bare trustee for GB and equitable relief (declaration and transfer order) is granted; the illegality argument does not bar relief on the facts and applying…
8 Jan 2026

LI CHUNG HONG ERIC v. TUNG CHUN WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 201
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA768/2023

Summary judgment requires defendants to adduce credible, particularised affidavit evidence showing a real and bona fide defence; documentary evidence of genuine cryptocurrency trading and contemporaneous transaction records can establish the bona fide purchaser for value without notice and change of position defences and defeat a summary judgment application, whereas bare assertions without supporting evidence do not suffice and justify summary judgment against those defendants.
18 Nov 2025

CHAN TING TING v. GUO GEORGE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1928
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4406/2020

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff established unjust enrichment: the 1st Defendant was enriched by funds traceable to the Plaintiff and that enrichment was unjust because the transfers were made without the Plaintiff's knowledge, consent or authority; the 1st Defendant failed to prove the alleged oral agreement and therefore failed to establish the bona fide purchaser and change of position defences; no constructive trust was imposed because tracing to retained funds failed and there was no pleaded wrongdoing or sufficient evidence of knowledge; judgment for Plaintiff for USD134,3…
11 Nov 2025

LING WAI LUN v. NORDIC WAY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1916
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4490/2024

The appeal was dismissed because (1) there was affirmative evidence that the AOS form was served and no evidence to the contrary; (2) the over-award of interest was rectified by amendment of the judgment and there is no appeal against that amendment; and (3) the Defendant failed to demonstrate a defence with a real prospect of success — the documentary evidence did not prove ownership or transfer of the alleged USDT or that the e-address belonged to the claimant, so the primary merits threshold for setting aside a regular default judgment was not met; accordingly the Default Judgment stood an…
16 Oct 2025

HAN JOHN ALEXANDER v. HONGKONG AUTOPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2022

On the balance of probabilities Autopal failed to discharge the burden of proving the asserted gold sale and that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice or that it changed position in good faith; accordingly the USD900,000 is held on trust for the Plaintiff (traceable property) and the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration, an account and inquiry and payment of any sums found due together with interest; Omega is liable for breach of contract but damages are limited to the pleaded sum of USD900,000 with interest from 18 July 2023.