Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan agreements

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

RE GRANDACCUM LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW694/2024

The court found on the evidence that the Company received the loan proceeds and made a partial repayment as recorded in the Petitioner's ledgers, that the Company's request for extensions undermined any assertion of a sham, and that the Company produced no cogent evidence to show the loan agreements were shams or that there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; accordingly the winding-up order was made.
30 Sept 2025

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 王一诚

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1257/2024

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the standalone requirement of a real risk of dissipation: there was unexplained delay of c.5 months without asset flight, account statements showed no material withdrawals or transfers, no cogent evidence of dishonesty or fraud, and corroborative evidence supports defendants' claim of a novation/arrangement; accordingly Mareva injunctions were dismissed and costs ordered against plaintiff.
30 Sept 2025

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 李克凡

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1258/2024

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the standalone requirement of demonstrating a real risk of dissipation: unexplained delay of months after demand and commencement, account statements showed no substantial realizations or transfers despite opportunities, absence of cogent evidence of dishonesty or fraudulent conduct, and credible evidence supporting the defendants' assertion of a novation/loan swap reduced the inference of dissipation; accordingly the Mareva summonses were dismissed.
17 Feb 2025

MARLON RAY CHEN v. GU YAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 255
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ510/2021

On the balance of probabilities and having accepted Plaintiff's credible evidence and contemporaneous documents, the court found the personal payments, tax payment and company expenses were loans repayable by June 2016, that an Interest Agreement at 1% per calendar month was made on 20 June 2016, and that RRL and GGL did not act as nominees/agents such that the Defendant's counterclaim based on the Share Transfer Agreement failed; accordingly Defendant ordered to pay principal and interest and costs.
13 Dec 2023

IVY ZHU XU v. HONG KONG PETROCHEMICAL CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3252
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1248/2017

Discovery ordered for Groups One to Three as relevant and necessary for fair disposal and to save costs; discovery of Group Four (AFSs 2019–2021) refused as not necessary and tending to impeach directors; master's security order of HK$715,500 set aside and replaced with security of HK$1,500,000; costs directed on a nisi basis with ancillary directions on transcripts and summary assessment.
21 Jul 2023

HUANG CHANG FA v. TONG YUK PING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1201/2022

Application for a Mareva injunction dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a good arguable case on key contested facts (timing and consent to added details in the loan agreements and whether amounts remained unpaid), failed to produce solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation, and failed the duty of full and frank disclosure; balancing of convenience favoured refusal of the draconian freezing order.
23 Dec 2022

TRILLION WIDE CREDIT FINANCE LTD v. AMPLE SKY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA288/2019

The plaintiff proved execution of the two loan agreements, receipt and non‑repayment of the loans; the defendant produced no evidence to rebut; alleged MLO non‑compliances were either inapplicable, not shown to cause prejudice, or did not invalidate the agreements (and the 2nd loan fell outside MLO as a bona fide property purchase loan); the 2nd Loan Agreement evidenced an intention to create an immediate equitable interest and was registrable; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the originating summons dismissed.
18 Jul 2022

FLEXI CREDITS LTD v. WONG CHI KIT CLEMENT

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA738/2022

Service was adequate, the plaintiff established a good arguable case (abandoning the 48.00006% contractual claim and pursuing interest at 8%), the defendant has assets in Hong Kong (pension) and, on undisputed contemporaneous evidence of retirement, receipt of pension, subsequent loss of contact and a dishonoured cheque, there is a solid basis to infer a real risk of dissipation; on balance of convenience the mareva injunction and ancillary disclosure order should be granted pending trial.
18 Jul 2022

IDEA PERFECT HOLDINGS LTD v. GATEWAY ASIA RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1060
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV495/2021

The 2nd defendant failed to satisfy the first Ladd v Marshall condition because the documents were available earlier and he did not show reasonable diligence in obtaining them; he also failed the second condition because the proposed documents were not sufficiently probative to affect the outcome given the express loan agreements and overwhelming contemporaneous documentary evidence that contradicted his account; consequently leave to adduce the new evidence was refused and the application dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs on indemnity basis with CTFN's costs assessed at $350,000.
11 Oct 2021

CHOW TAI FOOK NOMINEE LTD v. DIAMOND CITY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA85/2020

The court held the defendants’ assertions of an oral agreement and oral variations were contradicted by detailed contemporaneous written loan and supplemental agreements, correspondence and conduct; the no-oral-modification clauses and executed deeds precluded reliance on alleged oral variations; the alleged defences and claims were inherently unbelievable and frivolous and amounted to abuse of process; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the lenders and the defendants’ counterclaims and DW’s statements of claim were struck out; costs ordered on indemnity basis with certificate for t…