Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repayment on demand

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2025

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. KING WAI PIECE GOODS COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1371
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1246/2024

Contemporaneous written communications and the express terms of the 2023 Facility Letter and prior facility letters refuted the defendants' allegations of misrepresentation and duress; the Overriding Right Clause and the September Deadline were expressly disclosed and available for perusal; no illegitimate pressure was established and no triable issues of fact arose that would require conversion to a writ; accordingly summary judgment was entered for HSBC and the mortgage enforcement orders and costs followed.
3 May 2021

RE ASIA VIEW ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2021

Because the facility letter reserved the Bank's unrestricted right to demand repayment and the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme does not legally prevent the Bank from recovering from the debtor (it only provides an 80% contingent guarantee), the company had no bona fide defence on substantial grounds and the court made the winding up order.
17 Jul 2019

SHEK KIN PONG AND OTHERS v. FTLIFE INSURANCE CO LTD (formerly known as AGEAS INSURANCE COMPANY (ASIA) LIMITED

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA739/2016

The express wording of the Side Agreement and Contract (clause 10.8, Clause 3 of Section II and Section III duty to repay) unambiguously applied to termination 'for any reason', therefore termination under clause 10.1 was valid and entitled the Company to demand repayment and to set off; plaintiffs produced no evidence of bad faith or unconscionable exercise of the termination right, so implied terms excluding clawback were rejected.
30 Oct 2015

PONG CHUN CHUNG v. YAN KWOK HUNG

Citation

PONG CHUN CHUNG v. YAN KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA689/2013

The court found on credibility and documentary evidence that the HK$1,600,000 advanced on 10 December 2008 was a loan (not a gift), supported by the cashier's order purchase form, the legal charge acknowledging HK$1,404,000, the IOU and the July 2012 emails as voluntary admissions; repayments reduced the total outstanding to HK$1,697,000 and judgment was entered for that sum with interest and costs.
5 Aug 2013

HENRY YIJIAN CO., LTD v. KINGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

HENRY YIJIAN CO., LTD v. KINGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2061/2011

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and documentary records showing payments and accounting entries recording them as amounts due from the defendant; the defendant received and reviewed the financial information and supporting documents and failed to object, and the conduct of the parties amounted to ratification under Companies Ordinance s32A(1)(b); accordingly the plaintiff proved entitlement to HK$124,200.10 plus interest and costs.
28 Dec 2012

SHUM NGO SHEUNG WINNIE v. TSOI YAN WAH STELLA

Citation

SHUM NGO SHEUNG WINNIE v. TSOI YAN WAH STELLA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1945/2011

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged oral loan agreement; considering the parties' relationship, surrounding circumstances, the manner and timing of payments, lack of documentary evidence and the plaintiff's delay in demanding repayment, the payments were gifts and not a loan, and the claim is dismissed.
3 May 2005

NICETON WORLDWIDE LTD v. ARCHIE SANI-TECH (BVI) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NICETON WORLDWIDE LTD v. ARCHIE SANI-TECH (BVI) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2412/2004

Clause 6.02, by its express overriding language, removed any repugnancy with the fixed Repayment Date so the advance was repayable on demand; the defendants failed to adduce credible evidence of an oral assurance or reliance sufficient to raise a triable estoppel issue, so summary judgment was properly entered and affirmed.
2 Jun 2004

EL VINCE LTD v. WU WEN SHENG

Citation

EL VINCE LTD v. WU WEN SHENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14607/1999

The Plaintiff failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a loan agreement existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and failed to prove that WONG Jen Tai had authority to bind the company to such a loan; the only unchallenged fact (payment) was insufficient without credible supporting evidence, therefore the claim is dismissed.
26 Aug 2002

SZETO YUK CHUN v. WONG KWOK LEUNG

Citation

SZETO YUK CHUN v. WONG KWOK LEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8068/2001

The court found the 1991 transaction was a completed sale for $250,000 when the solicitor handed the plaintiff the cheque, the $150,000 advanced for construction was a loan, and the $400,000 loan had a balance of $124,000; accordingly judgment for the Plaintiff for $250,000, $150,000 and $124,000 with interest was entered.
9 Apr 2001

SOUTH EAST GROUP LTD. v. NAM FONG INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SOUTH EAST GROUP LTD. v. NAM FONG INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10850/1998

On the evidence and documents the US$5,000,000 was a separate deposit by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant and not a security deposit under the formal Agreement; the 2nd defendant gave a contemporaneous written personal guarantee (supported by consideration consisting of the plaintiff making the deposit) and is therefore liable; judgment must be entered for the plaintiff for the deposit plus agreed interest and costs.