Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Part performance

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2026

KENWELL LTD v. LIU KIN KWAN GARY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 64
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP78/2025

The Court dismissed the new evidence application because the documents existed before the hearing and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence (failing Ladd v Marshall Condition 1) and, even if admitted, would not probably have affected the result because they only supported at best a tenancy at will which ended on grant of the 2023 registered tenancy (failing Condition 2); consequently the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs.
5 Jan 2026

WELL DYNASTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CLAREVILLE ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 72
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP478/2019

The Court found the alleged oral Collateral Agreement did not exist: contemporaneous documents and credible bank evidence contradicted Wilfred's account; Dicky/DSC were not in financial distress and no security by way of the Properties was required by the bank; the asserted acts of occupation, payments and correspondence were not unequivocally referable to the alleged buyback and rent‑free arrangements and therefore did not constitute part performance or give rise to estoppel; accordingly HCA 1842 was dismissed and HCMP 478 succeeded, Well Dynasty being entitled to vacant possession and agree…
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.
3 Dec 2025

TRILLION STAR (ASIA) LTD v. GAIN FORTUNE CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 795
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP95/2025

The Undertaking was, on its face and on the facts before the court, supported by valid consideration and enforceable on demand; however, the question whether the Undertaking ceased to have effect upon formation of a binding Provisional Agreement (and whether such a contract had been formed or acceptance communicated) raised sufficiently arguable issues to justify granting leave to appeal limited to those grounds; other defences (past consideration, part performance, failure of notice) were rejected or held irrelevant on the material before the court.
5 Jul 2024

CHOI YAT FAN YILDIZ, Administratrix of the estate of NG KET CHIEW, Deceased v. THE OCCUPIER(S) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1032
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP22/2019

Judge found on facts that 2nd Defendant exercised exclusive physical possession and animus from late August 1991 so Plaintiff's recovery claim was time‑barred by the 12‑year limitation as at late August 2003; independently, the 2007 agreement was performed by both sides and gave rise to equitable rights by part performance and proprietary estoppel obliging the administratrix to transfer the registered title to the 2nd Defendant; accordingly Plaintiff's claims dismissed and order for transfer made.
15 Apr 2024

CHOI YAT FAN YILDIZ, Administratrix of the estate of NG KET CHIEW, Deceased v. THE OCCUPIER(S) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 628
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP22/2019

Court granted leave to amend most of the proposed paragraphs as they were cosmetic or did not cause prejudice, but refused the proposed §21(l) because the pleaded particulars (§21(m)-(s)) related to a distinct 2010 transaction and did not support the 2007 sale averment; §28 was not pursued by plaintiff and, in any event, limitation could not straightforwardly defeat a plea of part performance due to s4(7) LO and equitable doctrine. Plaintiff ordered to file amended pleadings by fixed date and to pay costs.
2 Feb 2024

MOORTHY SELVARAJ (as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYA SELVARAJ, Deceased) v. KARUPAYEE AMMAL (as the administratrix and one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYASELVARAJ, Deceased) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA413/2016

Plaintiff failed to prove on a prima facie or balance of probabilities that Mother agreed the DFA or the Oral Agreement; documentary record and objective facts undermine the claim and alleged part performance is not substantiated as a transfer by Mother; accordingly the contractual claims fail. A professional administrator should be appointed to replace the deceased administratrix; on the evidence the economical and suitable choice is Mat Ng of Grant Thornton. Costs of the failed DFA and Oral Agreement claims are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 2nd and 5th Defendants.
26 Sept 2023

STEF KRAUSS v. BRIGHT DAY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1347
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1046/2022

The appeal was allowed because the defendants raised credible triable issues: the meaning of 'one-fifth ownership' required factual and industry-contextual inquiry (direct registration v share transfer), there was evidence of part performance and substantial user by the plaintiff, potential impossibility or legal uncertainty in effecting direct 1/5 vessel registration required trial determination, and the 1st defendant pleaded a credible defence of counter-restitution for maintenance costs; accordingly summary judgment and the striking out of the counterclaim were inappropriate.
20 Jan 2023

HUI CHI MING v. KOON WING YEE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 93
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1479/2009

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the alleged Oral Agreement did not exist, the transfer of 100,000,000 shares was procured by duress, coercion and intimidation by agents of the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff proved his claim and is entitled to damages of HK$135,000,000 plus interest; the 1st Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed and indemnity costs awarded against him.
30 Dec 2022

KWAN SHUK CHING v. WAN MEI YAU

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2765/2016

The Plaintiff failed to prove the 1998 oral agreement or the 2001 representations; contemporaneous documents (notably the 2004 tenancy) and public land/charge records contradicted her account and her post‑2011 conduct was inconsistent with asserted proprietary rights; accordingly her equitable claims fail, the Defendant is entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits adjusted for certain post‑2015 renovation expenses.