10 Apr 2026
The court found the defendant not credible but concluded the plaintiff nevertheless failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the six disputed cash loans were made on the pleaded dates due to lack of corroborating evidence; the defendant had admitted owing HK$143,600 which the court ordered to be paid together with costs.
2 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed. The judge was entitled to conclude there was no triable issue: the defendants executed the 2021 Deed acknowledging the loan and outstanding sums; contemporaneous correspondence and partial payments corroborated the asserted Payment Agreement and indebtedness; a deed operates without consideration and the 2021 Deed is enforceable; accordingly summary judgment was properly granted and the defendants are liable for the sums claimed.
11 Mar 2025
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.
21 Jun 2024
On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's account and contemporaneous handwritten documents (the third IOU and the 31 October 2015 loan confirmation) as authentic and corroborative, and therefore held the first defendant liable as a borrower for RMB100,000 with agreed interest; the first defendant's forgery and witness-only defenses were rejected due to inconsistency and lack of supporting evidence.
4 Mar 2024
The court accepted the plaintiff's contemporaneous records, bank documents and WhatsApp evidence as reliable, rejected the defendant's inconsistent and non-contemporaneous ledger and late challenges as not credible, and therefore held the defendant liable to repay the outstanding loan of HKD221,210 less HKD1,200 repaid plus assessed bank interest loss, totaling HKD254,564.50, together with post-judgment interest and costs.
29 Dec 2022
The court accepted plaintiff's evidence (bank transfer records, pattern and frequency of transfers, handwritten IOU and WhatsApp messages) and found it more credible than defendant's inconsistent explanations; the IOU was voluntary and genuine; defendant repaid HK$370,000 leaving an outstanding debt of HK$430,000; plaintiff entitled to interest at HSBC prime rate plus 1% from 9 August 2019 until date of judgment and costs.
27 Aug 2021
Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the third party was entitled to the sale proceeds and consequently failed to establish the factual foundation for the alleged oral loan agreement; contemporaneous documents and witness evidence did not support the plaintiff's account and contained unexplained inconsistencies, therefore the claim fails.
16 Jul 2021
Contemporaneous text messages, the plaintiff's cheque payable to the defendant and deposit into her personal account, together with absence of contemporaneous evidence to support the defendant's shareholders' loan contention, made the defendant's defence inherently implausible; she failed to show a real or bona fide defence and summary judgment for HK$1,650,000 with interest and costs was appropriate.
15 Jan 2021
On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the evidence and contemporaneous accounting records produced by the Mother, AYP and APC, found AWC's alternative explanations improbable, held that AWC personally undertook/guaranteed repayment by issuing personal cheques in January 2011 and that the Company owed the pleaded debts to the Mother and AYP; the Company's claim against APC failed because the cheque discounting arrangement and set-off agreement, as proved, discharged the asserted liability to the Company.
29 Apr 2020
The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the HK$3,000,000 was a loan from her to the defendant; external contemporaneous ledger entries were neutral and more reliable than internal ledgers; the plaintiff's account was inherently improbable in commercial context and there was no reasonable basis to draw an adverse inference from the defendant's non-attendance.