Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of security

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2026

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. YEUNG FUK KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP559/2025

The Bank demonstrated a prima facie case under Order 88 to enforce the Mortgages; the Defendants' misrepresentation and mistake defences were not credible or bona fide and were affirmed by subsequent conduct; there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or causative breach by the Bank to invoke the prevention principle; claims of breach of advisory duty and failure to execute instructions are triable in the HCA action but do not bar summary enforcement of the Mortgages under the circumstances; accordingly the Bank's draft orders were made and the Mortgagors' Summons dismissed.
27 Feb 2026

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. LIN HAIYAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP662/2025

The court found that the Bank established the outstanding liabilities secured by the Mortgage and Guarantees on the evidence, the alleged calculation discrepancy was satisfactorily explained (or de minimis/typographical) and not a manifest error, and the surrender proceeds of the insurance policies had been applied as demonstrated by the Bank's evidence, therefore the relief in the originating summons was granted.
25 Apr 2025

KEYNE LTD v. JOVIAL PARADISE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1042/2024

The Company failed to show that presentation of a winding up petition would be an abuse of process: there was no substantive evidence of a defence, the six alleged payments were reasonably arguable as payments on behalf of other counterparties rather than repayments, and Jovial lawfully retained the option to enforce security or sue primary debtors; accordingly both injunction summonses and the underlying actions were dismissed and costs awarded to Jovial.
27 Aug 2024

ZS CAPITAL FUND SPC AND OTHERS v. ASTOR ASSET MANAGEMENT 3 LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1535
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1157/2020

Plaintiffs established a strong prima facie right to redeem the deposited shares and defendant had no arguable defence to defeat the equity of redemption; although defendant has an arguable case that the Proviso might be applied, that does not negate plaintiffs' entitlement to interim relief; after deducting loan proceeds, interest and agreed costs the court ordered interim payment of HK$115,300,000 and release of the proceeds in court to plaintiffs.
30 Apr 2024

CHENG KA YAN AND OTHERS v. GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1607/2022

On the available evidence the plaintiffs' core allegations of oral collateral representations and an implied term were inherently implausible, contradicted by contemporaneous documents and untenable; plaintiffs' claims were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and were struck out, and defendants were entitled to enforcement and summary judgment on their counterclaim.
20 Feb 2024

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS CO LTD v. VICTORY SEASON LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP292/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the Bank did not act unreasonably or in bad faith: it was entitled to require proof of funds for a substantial related-party purchase, it expressly reserved its rights throughout negotiations (including by way of the Surrender Memorandum and receivers' correspondence), and no clear representation was made that would give rise to promissory estoppel; accordingly there is no triable issue on breach of duty or estoppel.
10 Nov 2022

UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLC

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1079/2022

Defendant had unequivocally submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction by its conduct and relied on a non-exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clause in the Share Charges which it failed to rebut with exceptional circumstances; parallel New York proceedings were of little weight; the Defendant's tactical vacatur of the hearing and institution of New York proceedings amounted to abusive conduct; accordingly the summons for a stay/adjournment was dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiffs on an indemnity basis.
16 Jul 2021

GORGEOUS INVESTMENT GROUP HOLDING CO, LTD v. INDUSTRIAL BANK CO, LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1966
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA356/2021

Plaintiff failed to show a serious issue to be tried on its core allegations of fraud, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and breach of Quincecare duty because the evidence was insufficient and inconsistent; contractual terms and contemporaneous documents and conduct (including independent legal advice and express non-monitoring clauses) undermined plaintiff's case; the balance of convenience favoured defendants because the bank faced real risk of irrecoverable loss and plaintiff offered no adequate cross-undertaking; the Disposal was already completed making mandatory relief unnecessary. Accor…
3 Jun 2021

X v. A AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1595
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP222/2021

The Court held that Hong Kong had jurisdiction to wind up the BVI company because the Company held a 35.59% share in a Hong Kong company and subsidiaries were incorporated or registered in Hong Kong, giving a sufficient connection and a reasonable prospect of benefit to petitioners; the Company failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because the alleged oral Overall Agreement and Representation were unsupported by contemporaneous documents, contradicted by the loan and guarantee terms and surrounding communications, and were inherently unbelievable; accordingly the inju…
6 May 2021

SHUN HING ELECTRONIC TRADING CO LTD v. SUNRISE AIR CONDITIONING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1190
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA251/2018

Judge found the 3rd Defendant's evidence not credible and inconsistent, misrepresentation and undue influence not established, Plaintiff was not put on sufficient inquiry and had reasonably sought to ensure independent advice; on construction the D3 Guarantee was a continuing security covering (a) repayment of Secured Indebtedness under the Pledge Agreements, (b) indemnity for losses and costs arising from the 1st Defendant's failure to perform the projects (including costs incurred by Plaintiff in completing works), and (c) costs of enforcing the guarantee; the Loan Agreements did not discha…