Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality of contract

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2025

LI MIJIANG v. HOILUNG GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA47/2024

The Deputy Adjudicator committed legal error by failing to investigate three material issues (identity of employer, potential illegality of the agreements due to immigration/work permission, and whether the Claimant resigned), such failures constituted a breach of the statutory duty to investigate under s20(3) LTO and warranted allowing the Defendant's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remitting the case for retrial before a different adjudicator to address those issues.
15 Oct 2021

CHEUNG HEI LAN v. DING GAM SHAN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1173/2020

The appeal was allowed in part because there was an arguable defence that the Agreement involved unauthorised sub‑licensing contrary to the Ordinance (potential illegality) and because equitable set‑off based on the same facts was an arguable defence to the Plaintiff's monetary claims; accordingly unconditional leave to defend monetary claims and to file a defence and counterclaim was granted and the master’s order as to liability on monetary claims was set aside with directions on filing and costs.
3 Oct 2019

K CASH LTD v. SO WANG FUNG BY SO WANG MING HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1317
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5085/2014

The judge refused leave to appeal because the trial judge properly concluded, on undisputed facts, documentary evidence and reasonable inferences, that the plaintiff knew of the defendant's mental incapacity and the loan was procured by collusion and deceit making the Agreement illegal and unenforceable; procedural and evidential principles (pleadings, Browne v Dunn, hearsay rules, and decision not to draw adverse inference given the defendant's incapacity) were properly applied, so the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
16 Dec 2016

LI (or LEI) TING KIT TSO WITH LEE CHO TUNG AND LEE WING CHEONG AS MANAGERS v. CHEUNG TIN WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI (or LEI) TING KIT TSO WITH LEE CHO TUNG AND LEE WING CHEONG AS MANAGERS v. CHEUNG TIN WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2500/2013

The court held the Agreements were illegal and thus unenforceable for breach claims, but the 2nd defendant held the Original Land on a resulting trust because the stated consideration was not paid; because the 2nd defendant had assigned away the sections and could not account or restore the trust property, equitable compensation in the sum of HK$14,900,000 was awarded to the plaintiff with interest; the 1st defendant was not ordered to pay.
21 Jan 2015

CHENG KIN CHING v. CHING LIN CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHENG KIN CHING v. CHING LIN CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1645/2013

The court held the proposed claims are an abuse of process because they were or could and should have been litigated in the prior 2006 Action whose judgment is final; the pleaded equitable claims are unparticularised and disclose no reasonable cause of action; applications to amend and to join Pegasus and Polyline were refused and the claims struck out as frivolous and vexatious.
27 Oct 2014

KOREAN EXCHANGE BANK, HONG KONG BRANCH AND ANOTHER v. SSCP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KOREAN EXCHANGE BANK, HONG KONG BRANCH AND ANOTHER v. SSCP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA146/2013

Paragraph 4 of the Reply alleging the Agreement was illegal was unarguable and liable to be struck out because the pleaded statutory breaches did not establish a sufficient nexus to render the Agreement illegal or vitiate civil enforceability, and the pleaded allegations of statutory breaches were remote and improperly pleaded as material facts rather than evidence of propensity; accordingly the impugned plea and related interrogatories were struck out and withdrawn.
14 Apr 2014

TANG TENG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG TIN WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG TENG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG TIN WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA729/2011

The agreements were illegal and their illegal purpose had not been carried into effect; the defendants failed to prove payment of the stated consideration and relied on the illegal agreements to justify their position; accordingly the plaintiff validly withdrew under locus poenitentiae and the 2nd defendant holds the lands on resulting trust for the plaintiff, the assignment is null and void and must be rectified and set aside.
7 Jan 2014

RYDER INDUSTRIES LTD (formerly SAITEK LTD) v. TIMELY ELECTRONICS CO LTD

Citation

RYDER INDUSTRIES LTD (formerly SAITEK LTD) v. TIMELY ELECTRONICS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2358/2007

Deputy High Court Judge formed a preliminary view that defendants had established good grounds of appeal on the two main issues (particular lien and effect of illegality), and combined with the defendants' undertaking to pay the whole judgment sum and interest into court and after balancing prejudice, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution and retain the fund in court pending the appeal.
15 Nov 2012

SILVER HOPE LTD v. CHAN KWAI WAH ALICE

Citation

SILVER HOPE LTD v. CHAN KWAI WAH ALICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP82/2012

Registrar held the intended defendant had demonstrated an arguable proprietary/equitable interest in parts of the ground floor sufficient to be joined as a defendant under O.15 r.6; the charging order and writ of possession were not set aside but execution was stayed pending determination of the competing claims; costs of the application were ordered against the intended defendant to be summarily assessed with procedure and time limits specified.
8 Mar 2011

CHINA BRILLIANT LTD v. KABLE ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA BRILLIANT LTD v. KABLE ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2373/2008

Judge found on credibility and expert evidence that Kable performed in accordance with VTECS's design, VTECS's design was structurally safe, and Elevation Partners had no contractual duty to report structural discrepancies; crucially the plaintiff failed to obtain prior Building Department approval and the loss flowed from that failure rather than any breach by defendants; accordingly plaintiff's claim dismissed, Kable and Elevation Partners' counterclaims allowed in the stated sums, VTECS counterclaim dismissed, and costs ordered accordingly.