Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duress and undue influence

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 644
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2531/2017

Alleged negligent legal advice by the plaintiff's own lawyers, discovered after the Decision, does not affect the validity or enforceability of a settlement agreement signed by the parties and therefore does not constitute a matter going to the validity of the judgment sufficient to justify a stay under Order 45 r 11; there are no prospects of success on appeal and no good reason to stay execution.
29 Jan 2026

NG TUNG v. GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 644
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1682/2017

Allegations of negligent legal advice by the plaintiff's own counsel do not affect the validity or enforceability of a freely entered settlement reflected in the Schedule and do not, without more, justify a stay under Order 45 rule 11; there were no prospects of success on appeal and no good reason to grant the exceptional relief of a stay; therefore the stay summonses were dismissed with costs.
16 May 2025

REALORD GROUP HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN DYNAMIC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1939
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA716/2021

Both interlocutory applications were dismissed: the expert evidence application failed because the Defendants did not plead or particularise the alleged common industry practices and thus failed the Subject Matter, Relevance and Expertise conditions for expert evidence; the discovery summons failed because discovery ancillary to a Mareva injunction is confined to making the injunction effective and not to policing or investigating past breaches, and RGHL did not show a proper ancillary purpose or evidence of non‑compliance justifying intrusive disclosure.
20 Oct 2023

張鵬舉 v. 原翠美

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1200
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/2022

On the material before the court the defendant is impecunious (no income since 2020, unpaid costs orders, resort to loans) and the plaintiff would likely face undue delay and expense enforcing any costs order; the defendant did not establish sufficiently strong merits or an inability to raise the security to justify refusing security. Accordingly, it is just to order security for costs for the appeal in the sum fixed by the court and to stay the appeal until payment is made, with dismissal consequences for default and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
2 Dec 2022

GARSON REAL PROPERTY AGENCIES (H.K.) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HO PUI FONG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1800
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP476/2022

The proposed amendment to plead duress and undue influence by a nominee director was unarguable because nominee directors owe the same fiduciary duties unless there is a binding, substance-equivalent modification; the proposed defence did not meet that threshold and the amendment was unduly late and prejudicial, so the judge properly exercised her discretion to refuse it; leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
31 May 2022

張鵬舉 v. 原翠美

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2005/2019

Defendant failed to discharge the evidential burden to show any bona fide, particularised triable defence: the Note and Guarantee and WeChat messages evidenced receipt and acknowledgement of liability; allegations of capacity, third party transfer, duress and unenforceability were unsupported, inconsistent or inherently improbable; therefore there was no real issue for trial and summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
27 May 2021

CHING LEE ENGINEERING LTD v. EMT CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1517
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1488/2019

Set-off (both legal and equitable) constituted an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim for HK$1,000,000 and the guarantor could rely on that defence; consequently summary judgment was inappropriate and the Order 14 application is dismissed; costs awarded to defendants on an indemnity basis.
30 Apr 2019

LAI CHI KEUNG v. WANG ZHIHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW186/2013

The court found that the majority's conduct, including improper allotments, backdated appointments and coercive procurement of signatures, constituted unfairly prejudicial conduct warranting just and equitable relief under ss168A and 177(1)(f) of the Companies Ordinance; the court must determine the merits before making any buy‑out order and may proceed without setting aside prior consent orders where appropriate.
11 Dec 2018

HKSAR v. MA KA KIN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2711
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC312/2017

The court found on the evidence that the defendant's plea was involuntary: the plea arose from misleading and tainted legal advice and a material conflict of interest (legal fees linked to the co-defendant) which compromised the loyalty and independent advice owed to the defendant; accordingly the guilty plea was set aside and withdrawal granted.
11 Dec 2015

WONG CHEE SHUI ROSSANA v. EATING ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES GENERAL UNION AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG CHEE SHUI ROSSANA v. EATING ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEES GENERAL UNION AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM281/2014

The tribunal accepted the discontinuance without leave and applied the usual rule that the discontinuing applicant must pay respondents' costs because the applicant failed to demonstrate her case was so strong that she would have been bound to win; accordingly the applicant was ordered to pay respondents' costs of the application assessed at $54,000 (being respondents' open offer and a reasonable figure below the tribunal's aggregate assessment).