Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Money lenders regulation

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

CHEUNG BING KEUNG PETER v. HUI YUK YING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD54/2024

Applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of prejudice to the criminal proceedings sufficient to justify an open‑ended stay: the applicant delayed seeking a stay while pursuing extensions and filed reply affidavits, the civil and criminal issues were materially different, and a stay would unduly prejudice the respondents and potentially shelve bankruptcy‑related determinations indefinitely; accordingly the stay applications were dismissed with costs to the respondents.
15 Apr 2025

YAN TAO v. WANG JIAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1597
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA81/2025

Because the defendant did not file a defence the court treated the pleaded facts as admitted, including the plaintiff's pleading that he is not a money lender; accordingly s22(1)(a) MLO did not render the CLA's compound interest clause illegal and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the Outstanding Loan Sum and interest pursuant to the CLA; costs awarded and summarily assessed at $94,000.
8 Aug 2024

储惠敏 v. KWOK CHING CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1380
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA89/2020

On the evidence the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that the Two Loan Agreements and Legal Charges were genuine loan arrangements; the court found the Impugned Documents to be sham arrangements (parties intended the documents would not create the legal rights they appeared to create and to mislead third parties) and therefore void ab initio; duress and undue influence were not made out on the facts and the Money Lenders Ordinance defence failed for lack of evidence.
24 Oct 2023

WIN ONE CAPITAL LTD v. HO YUK CHING

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1491
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3127/2021

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals and affirmed the Master's refusal to grant summary judgment because the defendant advanced a believable arguable defence of undue influence and misrepresentation by a third party, there were multiple connected actions and an ongoing police investigation, and triable issues existed (including whether plaintiffs were put on inquiry); accordingly summary judgment or interim judgment for principal was inappropriate and the matters must be tried together with the third‑party claim.
5 Jan 1990

HONOUR FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN MANG

Citation

HONOUR FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN MANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/1989

The Master was entitled to find the defendant had made sufficient disclosure, the plaintiff failed to prove concealment or evasiveness, and given the defendant’s demonstrated subsistence income and lack of assets it would be oppressive and unlawful to exercise the discretionary power to imprison; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the Master’s order upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEUNG BING KEUNG PETER v. HUI YUK YING

YAN TAO v. WANG JIAN

储惠敏 v. KWOK CHING CHING AND ANOTHER

WIN ONE CAPITAL LTD v. HO YUK CHING

HONOUR FINANCE CO LTD v. CHAN MANG