Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Independent legal advice

Legal area

Court

23 May 2022

FUBON BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. UNION SHARP HONG KONG INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP618/2021

The court found no genuine or substantial factual issues requiring trial. Defendants' alleged defences were inherently implausible or contradicted by the signed written documents, including the Facility Letter's clause reserving the bank's right to demand repayment, the Warning Notice and acknowledgements, and confirmations of independent advice; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants and indemnity costs ordered.
1 Nov 2019

V, RHM v. V, ES also known as B, ES

Citation

[2019] HKFC 279
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10499/2018

Both consent summonses were set aside because the respondent did not enter them with a full appreciation of their implications due to material lack of financial disclosure and inadequate independent legal advice, compounded by inappropriate pressure and the respondent’s stressed emotional state; additionally the Amended Consent Summons contained unclear and arguably unenforceable provisions and risked prejudicing the reasonable requirements of the children, making it unfair to hold the parties to the agreements.
11 Dec 2018

GOLDEN RICH FINANCE LTD v. LAM SAU FA

Citation

[2018] HKCA 952
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/2018

The appeal was dismissed and summary judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed because the defendant's allegations of syndicate fraud and non‑knowledge were inherently improbable and contradicted by contemporaneous bilingual documents, a taped meeting, WhatsApp messages and the facts of the transaction; no credible evidence linked the plaintiff to the alleged conspiracy and no triable issue was shown to defeat summary disposal; costs awarded on an indemnity basis under the Loan Agreement.
21 Jun 2018

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GUANXIANG (HK) TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1767/2017

The court will proceed with the substantive hearing of the Originating Summons notwithstanding an intervening summons by a third party; the plaintiff may pursue summary determination of monetary claims, but no possession order should be made without hearing the third party claiming actual occupation and resolving contested issues of misrepresentation and informed consent.
9 Mar 2017

CITIBANK, N.A. v. YORK STAR CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CITIBANK, N.A. v. YORK STAR CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA526/2016

The 5th defendant failed to discharge the evidential burden to show that his signatures did not represent informed consent or to raise a bona fide triable issue; the guarantees contained explicit bilingual warnings and there was evidence the bank officer explained them, so the presumption of undue influence was weak and was rebutted; summary judgment was correctly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Aug 2016

CHAN YUK PUI v. CHAN YUI CHI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN YUK PUI v. CHAN YUI CHI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1222/2013

Although the Plaintiff initiated the gifts and understood their legal effect, the Court found that the Defendants acted in concert, preferred their own interests, concealed the Will and designated donees to prevent the Plaintiff changing his mind, and that CK Chan & Co failed to safeguard the Plaintiff by not advising independent advice and overlooking a conflict of interest; those concerted actions constituted actual undue influence sufficient to set aside the Deeds of Gift and restore the interests to the Plaintiff.
31 Oct 2013

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG KAM HO AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG KAM HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3324/2002

On the facts the 4th defendant failed to prove undue influence; although the bank was put on inquiry, the primary issue disposed the claim — absence of proven undue influence — therefore the Legal Charge was enforceable against the 4th defendant; the bank was entitled to contractual interest at 11.125% p.a. from 2 July 2002 to 5 December 2002 on the stated sum and judgment interest thereafter under s.49 HCO; the 4th defendant's counterclaim to rescind the charge is dismissed.
17 Feb 2011

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. ROBERT W.H. WANG & CO

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. ROBERT W.H. WANG & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3575/2003

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the husband was the beneficial owner of the borrower but the wife and son were not subjected to undue influence, they understood the nature and effect of the Guarantee and the solicitor (Mr Pang) had explained the documents and invited independent advice; there was no misrepresentation by the solicitor and no solicitor negligence, therefore the Guarantee stood and judgment for the bank was entered for HK$23,175,752.26 against the wife and son.
4 Aug 2010

HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LEUNG SHUI CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LEUNG SHUI CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV43/2010

Appeal dismissed: summary judgment was correctly entered because the mortgage and accompanying warnings and acknowledgements plainly disclosed the mortgagor’s liabilities, the mortgagor declined independent advice and could have obtained facility or financial information but did not; the bank’s duty required reasonable steps not guaranteed comprehension, and no implied term could contradict the express terms of the mortgage.
23 Apr 2010

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1634/2009

The court found no evidence that the defendants placed trust and confidence in their son amounting to ascendancy or that the son exercised undue influence; contemporaneous signed documents and the defendants' refusal of independent advice supported that no undue influence was established on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the Master’s order was set aside and the plaintiff was entitled to possession and judgment for the claimed sums.