Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mistake

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

UBE SINGAPORE PTE LTD v. TONGX CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA157/2023

On the facts and documents, plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that D1 was enriched by US$998,750 directly at plaintiff's expense and that enrichment was unjust by reason of lack of legitimate basis and plaintiff's mistake; D3 was enriched by US$194,000 and, applying Re Hallett, that sum is presumed to be plaintiff's money so enrichment was at plaintiff's expense and unjust; no defences were shown; judgment awarded restitution against D1 for US$998,750 and against D3 for US$194,000 with interest, continuation of the Mareva injunction for 6 months, and costs.
30 Mar 2026

YANG WELL INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. FIRECORE TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1814
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2285/2024

Plaintiffs established a prima facie sustainable claim: purchase orders named them, payments were made from their bank accounts and admitted received by defendant, and contemporaneous communications corroborated the transactions; defendant failed to particularise a bona fide defence that raised triable issues because its alternative contracting parties were unsupported (one non-existent, the other unconnected) and authority disputes were not credibly pleaded; therefore summary judgment granted for the specified sums, interest and costs and defendant's security for costs applications dismissed.
30 Mar 2026

FASCO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. FIRECORE TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1814
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2286/2024

Plaintiffs established a prima facie sustainable case by showing purchase orders in their names, payments from their bank accounts and contemporaneous communications evidencing agreement and offsets; defendant failed to particularise or adduce credible evidence of triable issues as to identity or authority (its assertion that it contracted with a non-existent TW entity or an unrelated HK entity was implausible); accordingly summary judgment was entered for plaintiffs and defendant's security for costs application dismissed.
27 Mar 2026

IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC v. CHAN CHI HUNG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA75/2018

The court held that contemporaneous loan documents (Loan Agreement, Promissory Note, Application and acknowledgement slips) signed by defendant established a binding loan of chips from plaintiff; plaintiff proved intention to create legal relations and CNMI-compliant lending practice via unchallenged expert evidence; defendant's assertions of gift, estoppel, mistake, non est factum and fraud were rejected on credibility and documentary grounds; chips therefore constituted loaned credit enforceable under CNMI law and defendant liable for US$1,446,184.40 plus contractual interest and indemnity…
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.
11 Jul 2025

TSANG YUEN WANG t/a Second Brother（二師兄） v. LEUNG WANG HONG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1123
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2772/2022

The court held the written Settlement Agreement was valid and enforceable: the Defendant failed to prove duress; the agreement was not void for vagueness; forbearance to sue provided sufficient consideration; the Defendant breached by non-payment; the Plaintiff's assertion that the contractual daily interest should be 0.8% (contrary to the written 8%) was not proved and was rejected; consequently judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$1,000,000 with interest at the judgment rate from the date of judgment and a costs order nisi.
22 May 2025

TSANG TAI TAI IVY, the administratrix of the estate of WU TAI WAI, deceased v. WU MING TAT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2057
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA371/2022

The Court held that as a matter of law the late David Wu’s succession right was extinguished under Chinese customary law on his death and his estate never had a right to succeed; the Plaintiff did not prove she signed under a relevant mistake (she was in doubt and had assumed the risk); the pleaded constructive trust is a category 2 remedial trust and the cause of action accrued by 31 December 1998 at the latest so the claim is time barred; accordingly the Plaintiff’s claims against the 2nd Defendant are dismissed.
12 Aug 2024

NGAI CHUK WA v. HU XIUPING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1330
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ128/2024

On the pleaded facts the Court found the defendant was enriched by HK$690,000 paid by the plaintiff, that the payment was made under a mistake/failure of basis and that misrepresentations inducing the oral agreement were sufficiently pleaded; accordingly restitution of HK$690,000 and costs were awarded by default judgment, but a declaratory declaration of rescission was refused as unnecessary to do justice.
28 Mar 2024

CHEUNG HIM SHING v. LUI HO CHEUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 502
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3939/2022

Summary judgment dismissed because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the defendant's enrichment was at the plaintiff's expense — the plaintiff could not trace the Subject Sum through the first‑tier accounts and the police letter was hearsay and inconclusive; triable issues remained on mistake and on the defendant's bona fide purchaser defence, so summary determination was inappropriate.