Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forbearance to sue

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

MAJESTIC PLAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. JI CHANGQUN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1755
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1494/2019

The court refused an unconditional stay because the defendant failed to demonstrate an overwhelmingly strong appeal or cogent evidence of irreparable deleterious effect; however, to balance interests and minimize prejudice to the successful plaintiffs, the court granted a stay of execution pending the appeal on the condition that the principal sums and accrued pre-judgment interest be paid into court within 21 days; costs ordered in the cause up to 13 February 2026 and defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs after that date, subject to summary assessment; defendant must lodge opposition to costs w…
11 Jul 2025

TSANG YUEN WANG t/a Second Brother（二師兄） v. LEUNG WANG HONG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1123
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2772/2022

The court held the written Settlement Agreement was valid and enforceable: the Defendant failed to prove duress; the agreement was not void for vagueness; forbearance to sue provided sufficient consideration; the Defendant breached by non-payment; the Plaintiff's assertion that the contractual daily interest should be 0.8% (contrary to the written 8%) was not proved and was rejected; consequently judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$1,000,000 with interest at the judgment rate from the date of judgment and a costs order nisi.
15 Jan 2024

MIDLAND REALTY (SHOPS II) LTD v. RICH FIELD INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ165/2021

The amendment application was dismissed as plainly late, raising new factual pleas unsupported by admissible fresh evidence and causing unfairness; on the merits the Supplemental Agreement was held unenforceable for want of consideration (no consideration flowed from defendant to plaintiff) and the Master’s grant of summary judgment for the outstanding HK$500,000 was upheld.
25 May 2023

TSE YOUNG LAI v. CHAN TING LAI

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1416
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA521/2021

Summary judgment on the principal balance was refused and the summons dismissed because triable issues exist as to the existence and bona fides of the Alleged Debt, the defendant's knowledge of any non‑existence (which affects whether forbearance could be valid consideration), and whether the settlement agreements were procured by duress or were unconscionable; those matters require a full contested trial.
9 Oct 2019

ATOM XQUARE LTD (formerly known as ATOM XQUARE CORPORATION LIMITED v. ARIST HOME LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1511/2017

The judge concluded there was no credible or arguable defence to the claim on the dishonoured second cheque: the evidence and commercial context rebutted the alleged conditional delivery/oral agreement; there was sufficient consideration (continued performance/forbearance) so no total failure of consideration; the fraud exception did not apply; arbitration/jurisdictional points were waived or untimely. Therefore summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Dec 2018

TIANMA MICRO ELECTRONICS (HONG KONG) LTD v. GIONEE (HK) COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA297/2018

Defendant demonstrated an arguable defence of absence of consideration on the affidavit evidence; there was insufficient admissible evidence to infer forbearance to sue or to justify piercing the corporate veil; summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and defendant granted unconditional leave to defend.
3 Oct 2017

YAO GUOLIANG v. LIU YANG

Citation

YAO GUOLIANG v. LIU YANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2269/2015

The Written Undertaking was enforceable: the plaintiff had a bona fide claim which he bona fide intended to pursue and forbearance to enforce that claim constituted valid consideration for the Written Undertaking; the defendant's alleged misrepresentation defence failed as it concerned a future promise by a third party and there was no evidence of authority or fraud; there were no triable issues sufficient to defeat an O.14 summary judgment and the master’s summary judgment was correctly affirmed.
3 Jun 2016

東莞市枝記市場投資管理有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. YIP KWOK CHI

Citation

東莞市枝記市場投資管理有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. YIP KWOK CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1072/2014

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the existence and terms of the alleged Supplemental 1st Debt Agreement or that daily deductions were repayments of the 1st Debt; contemporaneous documents and inconsistent testimony undermined plaintiffs' case. By contrast P2's possession of three batches of post‑dated cheques supporting an unpaid HK$850,000 indebtedness was found credible and established the 2nd Debt; accordingly P1's claim for RMB4,000,000 is dismissed, P2's claim for HK$850,000 is allowed, and defendant's counterclaims are dismissed.
21 Feb 2014

LAM CHING SHEUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TAM SHUI, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM CHING SHEUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TAM SHUI, DECEASED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/2013

The appeals were dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong, the substantive points relied upon by the appellants were either not pleaded at trial and could not properly be raised for the first time on appeal or would fail on the facts as found, and the judge properly exercised his discretion in awarding indemnity costs given the defendants' conduct.
21 Feb 2014

LAM CHING SHEUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TAM SHUI, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM CHING SHEUNG v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TAM SHUI, DECEASED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/2013

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's factual findings as not plainly wrong, rejected the new substantive defences raised for the first time on appeal, found no basis to disturb the judge's exercise of discretion on costs, dismissed all three appeals, and upheld the trial judgment and indemnity costs orders.