Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest on debt

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

TANG QIONG v. ZHANG TINGTING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1843
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA452/2018

The Court accepted the Plaintiff's unchallenged evidence and the IOU note together with corroborative statements and audio recordings established that the Plaintiff was the lender under an oral loan agreement for RMB 4,000,000 at 3% per month; the Defendant ceased interest payments from 1 December 2014, so the Plaintiff is entitled to principal plus accrued contractual interest to judgment and thereafter judgment rate interest; the Defendant's adjournment request was unsupported and refusal to adjourn was justified.
7 Jun 2024

BUDDY FINANCE LTD 對 HO WAI HONG ANDY及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 893
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4254/2023

The court granted the sale order because the mortgage deed conferred the plaintiff the right to realize the mortgaged half-interest, physical partition was infeasible given the unit's layout (no second access) and would substantially reduce value, the forced-sale valuation supported a sale at not less than HK$4,000,000, and the second defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove that sale would cause her substantial hardship.
11 Mar 2019

A & P DESIGN & PRODUCTION (HK) CO LTD 對 HO YUK KWAN

Citation

[2019] HKDC 243
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2924/2014

The court accepted the plaintiff had performed the contract and validly incurred and invoiced most variation items, rejected many of the defendant's counterclaims for lack of evidence or inconsistent testimony, allowed specific deductions totaling $68,238, and awarded the plaintiff the net sum of $162,027 plus interest and costs.
5 May 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2561/2009

HKCTV's IPTV service fell within the Schedule 3 Internet exception because the transmission used TCP/IP to set‑top boxes and the fact conversion to analogue occurred in common areas (not within individual premises) did not remove the service from the Internet exception; additionally the Internet for the exception requires association with globally unique IP addressing and HKCTV did not use globally unique IP addresses until mid‑July 2008, so variable licence fees were payable only for anniversaries before that change; 'subscriber' for fee calculation includes the individual domestic premises…
10 Sept 2009

GEE YAU WING TERRY v. NG KWOK WAH VINCENT

Citation

GEE YAU WING TERRY v. NG KWOK WAH VINCENT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6362/2006

On credibility findings the court accepted the plaintiff and witnesses and rejected the defendant; the evidence established the HK$300,000 was lent to the defendant personally and Pearldek Ltd. was used by the defendant for personal benefit; the cause of action accrued on 30 December 2000 and the action commenced within six years; therefore the defendant is personally liable for the principal and accrued interest.
13 Mar 2007

DAH CHONG HONG (ENGINEERING) LTD v. HENRY MARBLE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DAH CHONG HONG (ENGINEERING) LTD v. HENRY MARBLE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3238/2002

The court awarded only those items that were pleaded and sufficiently proved: the two advancements were held to be contractual debts recoverable and covered by the guarantee with contractual interest at 1% over prime from the respective advancement dates (and judgment rate thereafter); consultancy/quantity surveying fees were found to be provable loss and awarded; claims for overpayment and for management fees based on a 15% formula were dismissed for lack of proper pleading, evidence and appropriate method of assessment.
11 Oct 2006

HI-WATT INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD v. MULTI-LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HI-WATT INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD v. MULTI-LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1327/2006

Leave to appeal out of time refused because the applicant culpably delayed seeking to appeal and failed to demonstrate a good arguable case—attempted re-run of matters already considered and rejected by the trial judge concerning the account stated and interest charges did not satisfy the threshold for extension of time.
26 Jul 2006

HI-WATT INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD v. MULTI-LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HI-WATT INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD v. MULTI-LUCK DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1327/2006

Refusal of the extension: the application was dismissed because there was substantial and unjustified delay, the 1st defendant failed to protect its position before the appeal period expired (could have filed a notice and supplemented grounds later or given notice of intention), there was further unjustified delay after reasons were delivered, the proposed appeal lacked a real prospect of success given the trial judge's acceptance of a binding account stated and rejection of the defence evidence, and the plaintiff would be prejudiced by allowing an appeal in light of the statutory demand and…
19 Mar 2001

ORIENTAL AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE LTD. v. CARGOCARE HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

ORIENTAL AIR TRANSPORT SERVICE LTD. v. CARGOCARE HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5945/1997

The court found that the Supplemental Agency Agreement operated only from 11 April 1996 and, although it conferred a right to charge interest, the plaintiff failed to implement the new monthly accounting statements and gave no notice; that failure amounted to conduct giving rise to estoppel (and a positive duty to implement), so it would be unconscionable to permit the plaintiff to exercise the interest right retrospectively or during the period when statements were not issued; accordingly plaintiff's claim for interest fails. On counterclaims, the contract language 'airfreight charges paid t…
7 Sept 1999

CHINA LIAONING LTD. v. NEW CENTURY (HOLDINGS) DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Citation

CHINA LIAONING LTD. v. NEW CENTURY (HOLDINGS) DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20490/1998

The 25 May 1998 undertaking was an independent, enforceable promise to pay and did not fall within the arbitration agreement of the earlier sales contract; the defendant's forgery/agency defences were implausible and did not disclose a triable issue, therefore the stay to arbitration was dismissed and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff.