Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposit refund

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2026

CHAN TSZ CHUN v. ZHANG JINGEN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA44/2025

The court held the impugned determinations were primarily factual matters of causation and costs within the Deputy Adjudicator's discretion; the Deputy Adjudicator did not err in principle, his findings were supported by evidence and common sense, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable ground or reasonable prospect of success for appeal under s28 Cap 338, therefore leave to appeal was dismissed.
20 Mar 2025

HOMEBRIDGE INDUSTRIAL LTD v. GIMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 378
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ710/2022

The Court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence that the Defendant breached the fundamental exclusive-distribution term by selling the Frozen Series masks to unauthorised third parties, rejected the unproven oral variation defence, held that the Plaintiff validly terminated the Agreement and ordered return of the deposit with interest and costs; the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for procedural non-compliance.
17 Mar 2023

FONG KIN WA v. LI HAU YI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 765
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2235/2019

The defendants breached their express obligations under clauses 4 and 5 by failing to produce tax returns, tax assessments and the signed audited accounts reasonably requested for the purchaser's due diligence; that failure was repudiatory because it prevented completion conditioned on satisfactory due diligence under clause 4; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to and validly terminated the Agreement and recover the deposits.
17 Oct 2022

BENS AUTO LTD v. SPS AUTOMOTIVE PERFORMANCE (HK) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/2018

Court accepted Plaintiff's written contracts with Jip and oral back-to-back agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant, rejected Defendant's account and Woo's testimony, found deposits were paid by Plaintiff, found express term that deposits would be refunded if no delivery, held there was no agreed time for payment so no entitlement to forfeit, terminated by 28 September 2017 letter, and therefore Plaintiff entitled to refund of HK$3,135,000 and EUR1,075,000 with interest and costs.
24 Jan 2022

羅栐蘭對鄧燕

Citation

[2022] HKDC 56
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1645/2019

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was long-term and serious leakage or that any leakage caused infestation and the claimed health and economic losses; the landlord took reasonable investigatory and remedial steps and the available expert evidence did not establish the necessary causal link, therefore the claimant's claims are dismissed.
27 Sept 2019

梁健對 CHOW WAI KWAN

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1277
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3544/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the HKD300,000 constituted a loan; documentary evidence and defendant's bank transfers showing RMB166,000 and RMB84,000 to the plaintiff supported the defendant's account of currency exchange and repayment; plaintiff's evidence that he had completed half the renovation was unsupported, inconsistent and implausible; defendant was entitled to repayment of the HKD100,000 deposit; the Labour Tribunal costs order was payable to the company and not recoverable by the defendant in this action.
31 Dec 2018

PANG NINA WAI KIT v. WOO HON MING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2736
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1405/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove actionable loss: Provisional Agreement I afforded refund of deposits on rescission and contained no entitlement to recover a price-difference loss or legal costs; expert valuation evidence was inadmissible without directions; by nomination plaintiff ceased to have an interest in the subsequent purchase so she did not suffer the alleged loss; claim for damages dismissed.
5 Jan 2018

LOKUMAL & COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD v. KARISON LTD

Citation

[2018] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ80/2016

Court found the Sales Contract was for one single order of 1,000 cartons of electronic cigarettes, not T-shirts; defendant failed to perform within the contractual delivery timetable and breached the contract; the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the balance of the deposit (USD20,000) as damages; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
27 Nov 2015

YUI CHUNG YIN v. NG KIT SUM

Citation

YUI CHUNG YIN v. NG KIT SUM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/2013

The appeal is dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the trial judge was plainly wrong on the central factual finding that prices were those in the I_MY invoices, the Jack invoices were peripheral and unsupported as fabricated evidence, and the Plaintiff could not rely on new grounds not in the Notice of Appeal without leave which was not granted; therefore the trial judgment in favour of the Defendant stands.
3 Dec 2014

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA57/2014

The court granted leave to appeal because the applicant satisfied the onus by demonstrating arguable grounds involving questions of law, specifically errors alleged in relation to acceptance of the new tenancy agreement and consideration of mitigation of loss.