Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Capacity to contract

Legal area

Court

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.
10 Apr 2024

PREMIER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD v. SO WANG FUNG by SO WANG MING his guardian ad litem AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 990
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2337/2015

The court refused to amend the draft order: it declined the Defendants' request to limit interest to the date of the Judgment and declined to vary the costs order nisi under s.25 MLO because the court is functus officio on the interest issue and s.25 MLO did not warrant altering the costs exercise; the order is to be drawn as proposed by Premier Capital and no costs are awarded for the parties' preparation of submissions on the draft order; the Defendants remain free to pursue the point on appeal.
17 May 2022

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG KOON LUP AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2047/2018

Because the defendants failed to appear and produced no evidential support for their defences, the plaintiff established its claim and judgment was entered for the sums claimed with interest and costs.
6 May 2021

DYNAMIC ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD v. CHOI CHAU CHUNG by Choi Lam Hung, his Guardian ad litem

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1334
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1566/2015

On the balance of probabilities the defendant lacked mental capacity on 20 May 2015; the lender knew or in any event ought to have known of that incapacity (ostensible signs, request for medical certificate and attempt to record); the defendant did not in substance receive or retain benefit such that restitution fails; the true principal was the reduced sum and, accounting for deducted fees and prepaid charges, the effective interest exceeded 60% so the agreement is illegal and unenforceable under s.24 MLO; accordingly the counterclaim succeeds, loan unenforceable, restitution dismissed, and…
28 Nov 2019

DYNAMIC ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD v. CHOI CHAU CHUNG ( 蔡湫松) by CHOI LAM HUNG, his Guardian ad litem

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1566/2015

Leave to re-amend was granted because the plaintiff had already pleaded 'money had and received', the proposed amendment was a necessary and proportionate response to the joint expert report establishing lack of capacity, the plaintiff could pursue restitution without relying on illegality so a blanket bar would be overkill, delay was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify refusal, and issues of illegality should be resolved at trial; costs were apportioned with a specific award for the hearing.
16 Mar 2018

名人醫學美學有限公司對田曼盈

Citation

[2018] HKDC 256
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1962/2015

Court found plaintiff failed to prove P6 was agreed before treatments; accepted defendant's account and documentary inconsistencies; valid contract limited to black-eye treatment (HKD20,000) and whitening (HKD1,500) totalling HKD21,500; defendant had paid HKD50,000 so plaintiff must refund HKD28,500 plus interest; plaintiff's main claim dismissed and defendant's counterclaim partially allowed; Trade Descriptions allegation not established; defendant had contractual capacity at the material time.
11 Apr 2011

LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN

Citation

LAM MEE KING v. WONG KUO SUN JOHN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2408/2009

Medical expert evidence on the deceased's capacity is relevant and necessary for trial determination of capacity and therefore admissible; valuation evidence is relevant to the issue of the deceased's intention to sell the whole or part of the property and therefore admissible provided the joint valuation is prepared on the correct basis (without vacant possession); the Master's order should be upheld with those qualifications and directions for compliance.
23 Feb 2011

HEALTHY LIVING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. MURRAY ALASTAIR ELLIOT

Citation

HEALTHY LIVING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. MURRAY ALASTAIR ELLIOT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1463/2009

The court held the present proceedings were an abuse of process and barred by res judicata because the matters now raised (including capacity, duress and undue influence) could and should have been litigated in earlier proceedings which finally determined the competing equities; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims were struck out, the action dismissed and the Land Registry registration vacated; damages claims failed as not maintainable on the facts and law.
17 Nov 2010

MULTI STAR INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

MULTI STAR INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1004/2009

On the balance of probabilities the judge found that Lauw Senior did not suffer dementia during the material period and in any event the companies held him out as authorised so he had both actual and apparent authority; therefore the sale agreements were valid and Vendors entitled to damages; estate agents not liable; Midland's counterclaim for liquidated damages succeeded.
10 Mar 1998

HEBEI PEAK HARVEST BATTERY CO. LTD. v. POLYTEK ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Citation

HEBEI PEAK HARVEST BATTERY CO. LTD. v. POLYTEK ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/1997

Appeal allowed and lower judge's order set aside because central questions about the plaintiff's legal capacity and existence under PRC law at material times (formation/signature date 8 March 1991 and possible subsequent cessation) were unresolved; matter remitted to Court of First Instance for rehearing to determine (1) whether an arbitration agreement was formed on 8 March 1991 and (2) whether and when the plaintiff ceased to exist, with costs nisi ordered against the plaintiff.