Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rescission and restitution

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2022

CHU WAI SHAN v. CHAN KOK WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2877/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court found that the Disputed Documents were presented and signed in the form in which they now appear (except for dating of certain transfer documents), that there was no compelling evidence of fraud or post-signing fabrication by Mr Chan or Mr Li, and that Shum and Chu understood the nature and effect of the documents when signing; accordingly the share sale to Li was effective, Win City entitled to vacant possession and damages (mesne profits) and claims for rescission, fraud and professional liability against Mr Chan/W&W fail (but their professional con…
30 Jun 2015

DR. YIP CHI HIM ROGER AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DR. YIP CHI HIM ROGER AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA356/2009

Court found plaintiffs (Yip/Capital) made false and fraudulent representations that Tabatha was a clean pink‑sheet shell and that reverse‑merger would be used; Lee relied on those representations and was induced to pay US$350,000 under Tabatha Contract; no contemporaneous or credible evidence justified a consensual change to direct filing or any written amendment; rescission was valid and restitution awarded. On defamation, Lee's allegations that Yip had defrauded were substantially true and s.26 applied to any ancillary imputations about an honorary doctorate; plaintiffs' defamation claim fa…
27 Jan 2004

PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LTD v. TRIPOLE TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LTD v. TRIPOLE TRADING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5370/1993

The judge found on the balance of probabilities that no oral agreement of 18 March 1993 existed; Ding Peng and Zheng Lie Lie unlawfully procured and implemented transfers (11 and 17 June 1993) that divested the plaintiff companies of beneficial interests; consequently those June agreements were voidable and must be rescinded, with declarations, accounts and damages ordered; Ng Hiu Nam and Deng Liu Gen were innocent participants and their claims were dismissed; the court refused to order return of shares or broad injunctions affecting PRC regulatory reallocations because of practical limits an…
2 May 1997

CHAN SZE YUEN AND ANOTHER v. KAN WING YEE WENDY

Citation

CHAN SZE YUEN AND ANOTHER v. KAN WING YEE WENDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP311/1997

Because the vendor (through her solicitors) produced a document that revealed a possible third‑party equitable interest and had actual or constructive knowledge of that potential defect, she could not rely on contractual limits to avoid disclosure; absence of rebuttal of the presumed resulting trust meant the vendor failed to prove good title and later breaches gave rise to fresh causes of action so the claim was not time‑barred; plaintiffs entitled to rescind, repayment, lien and costs.
10 Jul 1985

NG SHUNG WING, RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. TAGGART INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

NG SHUNG WING, RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. TAGGART INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA34/1983

The clause was a condition subsequent; defendant failed to obtain permanent residence within a reasonable time and, after reasonable notice by the plaintiffs, the failure amounted to repudiation entitling plaintiffs to recover all sums paid and expenses; the Hurricane Bonds were part of the overall transaction and recoverable.
17 Feb 1976

PAO ON AND OTHERS v. LAU YIU LONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

PAO ON AND OTHERS v. LAU YIU LONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1159/1975

On the proved facts the plaintiffs and defendants negotiated and signed the subsidiary sale agreement with knowledge of its nature; there was no antecedent mid‑February oral guarantee; extrinsic evidence was admissible to show that the guarantee was given to induce plaintiffs to perform the main agreement (an executory consideration) and a promise to perform a duty to a third party was valid consideration; the defendants chose to yield to the plaintiffs' refusal to complete but their position did not amount to duress or such inequality of bargaining power as would vitiate the guarantee; accor…

Hong Kong Case Law

CHU WAI SHAN v. CHAN KOK WAI AND OTHERS

DR. YIP CHI HIM ROGER AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER

PROSPERFIELD VENTURES LTD v. TRIPOLE TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

CHAN SZE YUEN AND ANOTHER v. KAN WING YEE WENDY

NG SHUNG WING, RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. TAGGART INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED

PAO ON AND OTHERS v. LAU YIU LONG AND ANOTHER