Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Gift vs loan

  • 11 Mar 2025

    LIU TSAN CHING v. PAK TIM YING TIFFANY

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 393
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4691/2021

    The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous communications showing the parties treated the HK$320,000 as a loan, the Defendant acknowledged the debt in the Supplemental Agreement and by partial repayments, the Defendant failed to prove duress or any credible set-off; accordingly the Defendant is liable for the outstanding principal of HK$290,000 plus the agreed HK$50,000 interest, and further interest and costs as ordered.

  • 13 Sept 2024

    CHAN WAI HON ALAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK FOEBE

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1650
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA714/2018

    On the balance of probabilities the judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous documentary record that the HK$20,000,000 and HK$4,200,000 transfers were loans and that the HK$15,000,000 loan remained outstanding; the defendant's alternative explanations were implausible and inconsistent with documents; further, plaintiffs did not carry on a business of money lending (no system, continuity, solicitation or advertising, several loans made at the defendant's request and some interest-free), so MLO did not bar recovery; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiffs with contractual…

  • 13 Dec 2019

    CHOW KWAN YEE v. LEUNG MEI YIN MAY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2998
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1260/2017

    The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and account records, drew adverse inferences from the defendants' non‑disclosure of bank records and failure to call witnesses, concluded the HK$2,000,000 was an enforceable oral loan repayable by defendants (not a gift), found plaintiff's claim within limitation, dismissed defendant 2's monetary counterclaims as time‑barred and his delivery up claim for lack of sufficiently precise evidence, and granted specified monetary and ongoing repayment orders plus interest and costs accordingly.

  • 28 Oct 2010

    T v. SHIU WAI TUEN

    Citation
    T v. SHIU WAI TUEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2229/2007

    Based on credibility, demeanour and inherent probabilities the court found the Plaintiff voluntarily and unconditionally gifted the Defendant HK$17.8 million; there was no compelling evidence that the Defendant extorted HK$8.3 million by threats; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim for repayment was dismissed. Conversely, the court found the Plaintiff gave false witness statements to police causing arrest and charge of the Defendant; all elements of malicious prosecution were satisfied and judgment entered for the Defendant on the counterclaim with awards for special and general damages, intere…

  • 6 Jan 2009

    LHK v. CLH

    Citation
    LHK v. CLH
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15231/2006

    Judge found on balance the Deed of Family Arrangement was not entered into by the husband to defeat the wife's ancillary claim; held the HK$1.52m advance came from the late father and was a gift, not a loan; computed total available assets at HKD2,238,102 (husband HKD1,100,044; wife HKD1,138,058); declined to disturb the near equal notional division (wife holds marginally more) but ordered the NF property may remain occupied by wife and son until the son is 18 or ceases full-time education provided the wife pays mortgage and outgoings; ordered husband to pay HK$2,400 pcm to wife (mortgage con…

  • 19 Jun 1998

    CHAN KAM TSUEN WALTER v. CHAN CHUN HEI DAVID

    Citation
    CHAN KAM TSUEN WALTER v. CHAN CHUN HEI DAVID
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1678/1997

    Defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the April–May 1990 transfers were gifts to him; contemporaneous evidence (mother's 26 June 1990 letter, defendant's conduct in consolidating funds in mother's account and remitting) indicated the funds remained the mother's property and defendant treated them as subject to her control; the US$400,000 remitted to plaintiff was ratified by the mother as a gift to the plaintiff; defendant's restitution and set‑off claims therefore failed and plaintiff succeeded on both consolidated actions.