Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral collateral agreement

Legal area

Court

5 Jan 2026

FOOK CHEONG TEXTILES TRADING COMPANY LTD v. WELL DYNASTY DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 72
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1842/2019

There was no credible or adequately evidenced collateral agreement as pleaded; contemporaneous bank and corporate records and credible witness evidence (UCB, Annie, Suzette, company records) contradicted the claimant's account; the acts relied upon were not unequivocally referable to the alleged buyback and rent-free covenant; any occupation was on a gratuitous basis and the licence was validly terminated on 27 August 2018; consequently possession was granted to Well Dynasty and the proprietary/contract claims in HCA 1842 were dismissed.
30 Jun 2023

JOINT SUCCESS (HK) LTD v. KAMSH (PTC) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2/2022

The 13 December 2021 letter validly operated under clause 10.03 to accelerate the loan after the 10 December default; the originating summons complied with O.7 r.3(1); the alleged oral collateral agreement and counterclaims were inherently incredible and unsupported, so there were no triable issues and summary judgment for the Plaintiff was appropriate.
26 Feb 2021

CHAN YU YAN v. IMPERIAL SIERRA GROUP LIMITED HOLDINGS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2048/2019

Defendants failed to adduce sufficient evidence or particulars to establish a bona fide triable issue that an oral collateral agreement or nominee arrangement negated the plaintiff's contractual entitlement under the written Subscription Agreement; absent that evidence and given the entire agreement clause, the appeal was dismissed and summary judgment affirmed.
19 Jun 2020

LINK WIDE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (HONG KONG) LTD v. SUN STEEL (HK) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 429
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2008/2019

The defendants failed to adduce credible or contemporaneous evidence to prove the alleged March/April and February oral agreements or animus contrahendi; their case was inherently implausible and contradicted by documents; accordingly they did not satisfy the burden to show a bona fide defence and summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.
12 Jun 2017

CITY MAKER LTD v. JETCOOL GROUP (WONG\'S) LTD

Citation

CITY MAKER LTD v. JETCOOL GROUP (WONG\'S) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2214/2016

The defendant's account was not believable: the 27 June 2016 letter is inconsistent with an earlier formal notice and with knowledge of any break clause, the defendant had and accepted the written second tenancy agreement (including by WhatsApp), and there was no credible evidence of an oral collateral term or misrepresentation; therefore the written lease governs and summary judgment was correctly entered.
15 Aug 2006

ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3111/2005

Because three of the four alleged clauses of the Second Oral Agreement are contained in the written Termination Agreement and there is no credible contemporaneous evidence for the additional alleged reimbursement term, the alleged Second Oral Agreement was collateral and not independently proved; the defendant's counterclaim was not credible and did not raise a triable issue, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment for HK$257,800 plus interest and costs.
24 Oct 2002

HONG KONG PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL v. ZI CORPORATION (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

HONG KONG PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL v. ZI CORPORATION (H.K.) LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ17643/2001

The defendant's denials and alternative pleas raised credible triable issues when assessed against the contemporaneous documents and background; the August 2001 letter is a without prejudice settlement communication and inadmissible; accordingly summary judgment is inappropriate and the defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend.
7 Nov 2001

THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LTD. v. KOFIELD LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LTD. v. KOFIELD LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10673/2000

The alleged oral 1st and 2nd agreements were not credible as a matter of law because they were contradicted by contemporaneous written loan documents and acknowledgements of debt, lacked any supporting contemporaneous writing, were inherently implausible as commercial arrangements, and the defendants advanced inconsistent versions; therefore no real or bona fide triable issue was shown and the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Nov 2001

THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LTD. v. INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD. & ANOTHER

Citation

THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LTD. v. INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD. & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5/2001

The alleged oral 1st and 2nd agreements were inherently implausible and contradicted by contemporaneous loan documentation, acknowledgements of indebtedness and the parties' conduct; the defendants therefore failed to establish a credible triable defence and the appeal from summary judgment was dismissed.
7 Nov 2001

THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LTD. v. KILOWORLD LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE CHINA AND SOUTH SEA BANK LTD. v. KILOWORLD LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10672/2000

The judge found the defence that two oral agreements suspended or varied the defendants' written loan obligations to be incredible on the basis of inconsistency with contemporaneous loan documents and acknowledgements, inherent commercial implausibility, lack of any written record for important terms (notably the 75% purchase term), and shifting versions by the defendants; accordingly there was no real or bona fide defence and the appeal was dismissed.