Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detrimental reliance

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

SHUN PONG LTD v. CHAN KOO KAI FELIX AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA255/2017

The court found the Defendant's evidence on the alleged representations was inherently improbable and the Defendant not a credible witness; no clear representations were made by Chan Senior or the Plaintiff, so reliance, detriment and unconscionability elements failed; accordingly the counterclaim in proprietary/promissory estoppel was dismissed and the Plaintiff's claim for vacant possession succeeded, with mesne profits to be assessed.
5 Mar 2025

SIU WAI MING v. SHIU WAI HONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 237
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2020

The Court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the plaintiff, by his words and conduct in the May 1998 telephone call and by his subsequent conduct, manifested a change of common intention surrendering his beneficial interest in the Scenic Garden property; the 1st defendant believed and relied on that surrender and assumed the responsibilities thereafter; the trial findings were not plainly wrong; accordingly the constructive trust ceased and the plaintiff’s claims (including against the 2nd–4th defendants) failed.
17 Oct 2024

ALDL v. FTFC AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKFC 192
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13698/2013

Leave to appeal dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge's primary factual findings that payments were gifts and that remunerations were genuine were not plainly wrong; detrimental reliance was not pleaded; resulting trust presumption was rebutted by findings of gift; costs awarded to respondents.
5 Aug 2024

CHINACHEM AGENCIES LTD v. GONG ZHONGXIN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2025/2019

The Siblings failed to establish estoppel by convention: there was no communicated or mutually manifested common assumption adopted by the Plaintiff; the alleged assurances were vague and uncertain; there was no demonstrable detrimental reliance; accordingly the Plaintiff validly terminated revocable licences and is entitled to possession and mesne profits; the Counterclaim is dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
20 Apr 2020

CHUEN MING AND CO LTD v. LI MUN HOK STEVEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 14
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD604/2019

R2 failed to prove that Li Senior made a clear and unequivocal promise on behalf of the Company to grant exclusive life occupation or that she reasonably relied to her detriment to the extent necessary; the Tenancy Agreement is enforceable against R1 who did not contest; accordingly the Company is entitled to possession and mesne profits at HKD145,000 per month from 1 April 2019 until delivery, and R2's equitable claims are dismissed.
21 Mar 2019

KONG HON KUI THOMAS and KONG HON QUAN MARIUS (Administrators of the Estate of Kong So Ngo, Deceased) v. WU YUK CHUN JUDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 742
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA350/2013

Claim dismissed: court found the alleged Promise was not proven with sufficient clarity or credibility and there was no satisfactory evidence of detrimental reliance; all disputed bank funds remained beneficially the deceased's and must be returned; administrators entitled to ownership and possession of the Property and all estate assets; mesne profits and other orders granted as set out.
5 Apr 2016

RAINGATE LTD v. BEE CHENG HIANG (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

RAINGATE LTD v. BEE CHENG HIANG (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3540/2015

The court held that the 2nd defendant has a real or bona fide defence of estoppel/acquiescence because triable issues exist on knowledge and related matters and detriment may be intertwined with those elements; therefore the proposed appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success under s63A(2) and leave to appeal was refused.
27 Dec 2006

RE GLORY RISE LTD

Citation

RE GLORY RISE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV381/2004

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge correctly found the deceased's representations induced the plaintiff to act to her detriment giving rise to a common intention constructive trust which could attach to the company's shares and, ultimately, the underlying property once the interested shareholdings left only the parties; consequently the winding up order and dismissal of the company’s action were properly made.