Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan dispute

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2024

XIE JIA YUE (also known as TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE) v. FUNG YUK CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 163
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4086/2018

On the evidence and credibility findings the court concluded the plaintiff did not have enforceable loans against the defendants: the HK$4,000 payment was voluntary; the HK$218,193 benefit was procured by Roger and a family arrangement existed with Terence/Roger so unjust enrichment claim should be pursued against Roger, not the defendants; the HK$120,000 was payment for occupation (rental) rather than a loan. There was no enforceable promise that Beverly Villas Property was a gift to plaintiff and Roger. Therefore all plaintiff claims and the 1st defendant's counterclaim (and plaintiff's cou…
26 Jul 2018

SINGH HARDEV v. DOKE JITENDRA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 889
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2569/2016

Court found on balance that only one genuine personal loan of HK$90,000 was proved; Cheques A,B,C relate to that loan and s30 BEO presumption applies; Cheques D and E involved failure of consideration and dishonest alteration by plaintiff; judgment entered for HK$90,000 against 1st defendant with interest from presentation dates of Cheques A,B,C; costs ordered nisi for no order as to costs due to both parties' untruthful testimony.
28 May 2013

KUAN KAM YUNG v.TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE

Citation

KUAN KAM YUNG v.TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3702/2011

The Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the $400,000 constituted a loan and that a specific loan balance was owing; however, after assessing contributions and disallowed items, the court found Plaintiff was underpaid from the Property sale and ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff HK$142,237; the court also found there was no proved common intention that the HK$350,000 constituted a full and final settlement and dismissed Defendant's counterclaim.
28 Mar 2012

LIN MING v. JOINTA LTD

Citation

LIN MING v. JOINTA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA866/2011

Summary judgment refused because authenticity and authority of the board minutes and the accuracy and provenance of the unaudited accounts are disputed, the evidence does not clearly establish that the Company is indebted for US$6,562,500, and there are triable issues requiring trial and cross-examination; therefore the Company is given unconditional leave to defend and costs of the Order 14 summons are to be in the cause (order nisi).
19 Jan 2009

NG LAI KWAN FANNY v. VICO INFANT & GIFT PRODUCTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG LAI KWAN FANNY v. VICO INFANT & GIFT PRODUCTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5260/2007

The default judgment was set aside because the Defendants demonstrated a meritorious defence: the Statement of Claim failed to plead essential terms of the alleged Agreement, key factual disputes (existence of the loan, movements of funds, and the nature and effect of the Permit/licence) meant the Defendants' version could be believed at trial, and therefore there was a real prospect of success such that the default judgment should not stand.
16 Feb 2007

LAW CHI LEUNG, DONNY AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHIU NUNG

Citation

LAW CHI LEUNG, DONNY AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHIU NUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3666/2006

The judge found the taped telephone evidence demonstrated the defendant acknowledged a three-month loan and the defendant's contemporaneous assertions about a three-year term and alternative interest rate were inherently improbable and fabricated; therefore there were no triable issues and the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment for AUD100,000 with contractual interest at 10% p.a. to the date of the writ and judgment interest thereafter, plus costs and counsel's certificate.
21 Mar 2005

KING FUNG CONSTRUCTION WORK CO LTD v. YIP KWAI CHOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

KING FUNG CONSTRUCTION WORK CO LTD v. YIP KWAI CHOR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2183/2004

The ex parte Mareva injunction was discharged because, on the papers, only the discrete personal loan claim of $2.5M reached the threshold of a good arguable case while the larger inter-company claims and alleged suretyship were too speculative; the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation that would justify freezing assets, so interim Mareva relief could not be maintained.

Hong Kong Case Law

XIE JIA YUE (also known as TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE) v. FUNG YUK CHING AND ANOTHER

SINGH HARDEV v. DOKE JITENDRA AND ANOTHER

KUAN KAM YUNG v.TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE

LIN MING v. JOINTA LTD

NG LAI KWAN FANNY v. VICO INFANT & GIFT PRODUCTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

LAW CHI LEUNG, DONNY AND ANOTHER v. CHAU CHIU NUNG

KING FUNG CONSTRUCTION WORK CO LTD v. YIP KWAI CHOR AND ANOTHER