Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposit forfeiture

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

張莉對 KO KA YUE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2834
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA3/2026

Leave to appeal was granted in part because the applicant demonstrated arguable errors of law or principle in the Tribunal's handling of specific items (items 5,6,8,12) regarding whether the tenant could discharge repair obligations by the least onerous method and in the assessment of repair duration and rent loss (items 14 and 15) including responsibility for rent during key transit; all other factual findings were not shown to be plainly wrong and leave was refused for those items; costs to follow the appeal outcome.
20 Dec 2024

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. WING WO LUNG COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3678
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2980/2015

Where funds originated from the loan disbursed into an account controlled by the fraudster a constructive trust and tracing remedy arises, but a recipient who at the time of transfer establishes they are a purchaser for value in good faith without notice of the claimant's proprietary interest defeats the proprietary remedy; here the 10th defendant proved bona fide purchaser status (valid PSPA, valuable consideration, lack of notice at time of transfer) and change of position, so plaintiff's claims against him fail; the 3rd defendant failed to discharge its pleaded defences and plaintiff succe…
4 Oct 2023

HG PROPERTY INVESTMENT HK LTD v. CHENG MEI HOLDINGS LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1469/2022

The court refused to accede to the 3rd defendant's application at this stage because pleadings in the HG Property Action had not closed, preventing the court from identifying the precise issues and witnesses and assessing whether trial together would be proper and expedient; there was no urgency and the appropriate course was to adjourn the summonses to the Case Management Summons after close of pleadings, with directions to expedite filing of defences and case management steps.
4 Aug 2023

RESOURCES LEADER LTD v. HO NGO YING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2667/2018

Clause 20 of the Preliminary Agreement (the as‑is/cockloft clause) validly precluded the purchaser from objecting to the disclosed cockloft and its access; the Plaintiff's requisitions based on the Pau report dated 26 October 2018 were raised out of time (within 14 days of completion) and not waived; on the facts there was no real risk of enforcement by the Building Authority in respect of the material UBWs and the Defendant had shown and was able to give good title; Plaintiff's claim dismissed and Defendant entitled to forfeit deposits totalling HK$3,568,000.
21 Apr 2021

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD v. SUNTON LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1066
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA3/2021

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Adjudicator's conclusions were findings of fact supported by evidence and no question of law or jurisdiction was shown; the PTA required payment of the balance of the deposit prior to handover and defendants failed to pay thereby breaching the PTA and becoming liable for the commission under the contractual terms.
22 Oct 2020

MULTI ELITE LTD v. LI YAN PING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1486/2014

On the facts the waiver clause in the Shop 4 appendix was drafted in clear, ordinary language and, taken with the factual matrix, fairly alerted a reasonable purchaser to the risk of unauthorised alterations/UBWs; the purchaser knowingly accepted that risk by signing the PASP and appendix. Defendant 1 had no actual knowledge of the alleged UBWs; even if knowledge were alleged the operative issue is construction of the waiver. Purchaser was therefore precluded from refusing completion on the basis of the alleged UBWs and repudiated the PASP; defendant 1 validly forfeited the deposits. Defendan…
16 Dec 2019

LEUNG SHING YIN AMBROSE v. DORRO PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1671
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16/2017

On the objective evidence (logbook entries, delivery of draft agreements bearing company chop, completion of requested works and conduct), a concluded oral agreement existed; the defendant established sufficient part performance to render the oral agreement enforceable notwithstanding s3(1) CPO; the plaintiff repudiated the agreement and the defendant accepted repudiation on or by 8 August 2016; defendant entitled to forfeit the converted deposit of HK$90,000; defendant proved no consequential loss and is awarded nominal damages HK$1,000; net balance of HK$1,000 to be returned to plaintiff; n…
25 Jan 2019

KIN TONG LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD v. CAPELLA LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 65
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3495/2017

The Agreement was a binding agreement for lease; the defendant repudiated by failing to perform and issuing a dishonoured cheque. The plaintiff reasonably mitigated by marketing and reletting the premises; damages are recoverable for loss of rent, management fees and rates plus half stamp duty, less credit for the adjudged bounced cheque, totaling HK$106,192.52 plus interest and costs nisi.
27 Apr 2016

YU YING MING v. NG WAH HUNG

Citation

YU YING MING v. NG WAH HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3141/2015

Extrinsic oral evidence purporting to qualify delivery of the cheque was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; the defendant failed to raise any credible triable issue to resist summary judgment, so judgment for the plaintiff for HK$200,000 with interest and costs was properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Oct 2015

WONG PAK WING AND ANOTHER v. PEI MUN LING ANNY

Citation

WONG PAK WING AND ANOTHER v. PEI MUN LING ANNY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ252/2015

Summary judgment for the Purchasers was refused because the Vendor demonstrated an arguable defence on the PSPA's validity (Para 4(b) incorporation and Clause 17 arguments) and the Purchasers had failed to plead the necessary unjust enrichment element for restitution; the registration was wrongful because the action asserted only a monetary claim and no proprietary lien existed, so judgment on liability was entered for the Vendor on the wrongful registration claim and the HK$200,000 paid into court was ordered paid out to the Vendor.