Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misrepresentation

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

NEW DELTA TRADING CO., LTD v. SOUTH CHINA DEVELOPMENT (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1492/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the EPC contains a valid and sufficiently broad exclusive jurisdiction clause covering the Plaintiff’s claims; the Plaintiff failed to mount a pleaded specific attack or produce cogent evidence that the EJC itself was procured by fraud; separability applies so challenges to the main agreement do not displace the EJC; on the facts the dispute and connecting factors point to Shanghai and, even absent the EJC, forum non conveniens would have justified a stay in favour of the Shanghai Court.
31 Mar 2026

MAN SANG CREDIT LIMITED v. IP KWOK KIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2412/2016

The court preferred the plaintiff’s contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence and found defendants’ accounts not credible; the lender and solicitors took substantively reasonable steps to explain the securities so no actual or presumed undue influence or actionable misrepresentation was established; the Backdated Loan Agreement was an amendment of the Original Loan Agreement and fell within the Guarantee; the ding‑house mortgages were not rendered unenforceable by non‑payment of premium alone; statutory compliance under the Money Lenders Ordinance was satisfied on the facts; accordingl…
20 Mar 2026

YEUNG FUK KWONG AND OTHERS v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1104/2024

The Bank proved a prima facie case under Order 88; the Defendants’ misrepresentation and mistake defences are not bona fide given contradictory written documentation and conduct; the prevention principle is inapplicable because the Defendants failed to show causation between the Bank’s alleged breaches and the Bank’s right to demand repayment; claims of advisory breach and failure to execute are triable matters for the HCA action and do not bar the Bank from obtaining summary enforcement, therefore the Bank is entitled to enforcement, vacant possession and costs as ordered.
20 Mar 2026

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. YEUNG FUK KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP559/2025

The Bank demonstrated a prima facie case under Order 88 to enforce the Mortgages; the Defendants' misrepresentation and mistake defences were not credible or bona fide and were affirmed by subsequent conduct; there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or causative breach by the Bank to invoke the prevention principle; claims of breach of advisory duty and failure to execute instructions are triable in the HCA action but do not bar summary enforcement of the Mortgages under the circumstances; accordingly the Bank's draft orders were made and the Mortgagors' Summons dismissed.
19 Mar 2026

BENNY LEE WAI KHEONG AND ANOTHER v. LAM KEN CHUNG SIMON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 480
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ342/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found no actionable misrepresentation and no rectification; the building renovation was the act of the Incorporated Owners and not attributable to the plaintiffs as landlords so there was no breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment by the plaintiffs; the defendants repudiated the tenancy and are liable for rent and damages but the plaintiffs failed reasonably to mitigate, so damages were reduced to HK$742,224.84 plus specified interest and a costs order of 90% in favour of the plaintiffs.
5 Mar 2026

曹連英對駿盈顧問有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCA 347
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP38/2024

The Court refused leave because the proposed appeal raised only issues of a personal nature and not matters of wide public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b), there were no other reasons to justify a CFA appeal, the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay and the asserted grounds (delay by respondent's counsel, judge's failure to remind of time limit, solicitor misconduct) had been considered and rejected; the application had no real prospect of success.
13 Feb 2026

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. LAU KIM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP663/2025

The 2nd Defendant failed to adduce credible evidence of actual undue influence or misrepresentation and failed to show the bank was on inquiry; the bank had taken reasonable protective steps (Letter of Surety, Explanatory Notes, Warning Notice in Chinese and English); therefore there was no arguable defence or triable issue and the summons for leave to appeal and retrospective filings was dismissed, the out‑of‑time notice of appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
6 Feb 2026

KWAN SHIU YIN LOUIS as the Executor of the Estate of KWAN MAN CHOCK v. KWAN PO CHUEN PAULA

Citation

[2026] HKCA 182
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2024

The trial judge erred in law and fact by treating alleged misrepresentations as the sole means of proving undue influence, disregarding alternative pleaded particulars invoking the evidential rebuttable presumption; the judge failed to consider whether a relationship of influence existed and whether the transfers were not readily explicable, so the matter must be remitted for retrial limited to undue influence.
6 Feb 2026

GUANGHUA SS HOLDINGS LTD v. CHEN JIANAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA184/2024

Plaintiff proved a prima facie enforceable claim under the executed Personal Guarantees and contemporaneous documents; defendant failed to particularise or adduce contemporaneous evidence to show a real, bona fide defence of misrepresentation or economic duress, the alleged threats were lawful commercial pressure or unsupported, warning notices and independent legal advice undermine duress, and the counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action — therefore no triable issues exist and summary judgment is warranted and counterclaim is struck out.
3 Feb 2026

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG KONG HEUNG formerly known as WONG KWONG HEUNG CANDY

Citation

[2026] HKDC 181
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4781/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay in applying for leave to appeal out of time and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the discovery decision was a case management exercise of judicial discretion not shown to be plainly wrong; the allegations of tampering and bias were unsupported and rejected; costs were ordered against the defendant.