Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restitution/unjust enrichment

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

KOT SEE FOR v. KUNG HO YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2208/2019

Applying a broad merits‑based approach the court held D17 failed to discharge the burden of showing abuse of process: the two proceedings involve different causes, defendants and legitimate reasons existed to bring separate tracing proceedings after full Norwich disclosures; further the pleaded fraud was not incontrovertibly false on the documentary record (previous court rulings rejected that contention) and contradictions in WhatsApp messages raise matters for trial. Accordingly the striking out summons must be dismissed.
13 Jan 2023

NKOK, INC v. MAYLOK TOYS INDUSTRIES CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 7
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2010/2019

On the balance of probabilities P was the true owner of the Toy Molds because P initiated and controlled procurement, approved designs, and paid tooling costs; D1 acted as agent (reimbursement acknowledged and agent duties performed) and repeatedly accepted/preserved purchase orders expressly acknowledging P ownership; D1 failed to prove any express exclusivity or implied term giving it exclusive possession and in any event accepted P's repudiation; D1's possession of the 80-Series Molds was wrongful for purposes of conversion/detinue and could not found a particular or general lien absent la…
27 Sept 2016

CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHONG ON NEI AND ANOTHER v. HAN CHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA995/2012

The pleadings failed to allege facts capable of establishing that the 1st defendant had actual or ostensible authority to bind the 2nd defendant; accordingly there was no reasonable cause of action in contract, the Quistclose trust claim falls with the contract claim, and unjust enrichment fails because any enrichment of the 2nd defendant was not at the 1st plaintiff's expense but at the 1st defendant's; therefore the claim against the 2nd defendant was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out.
17 Jun 2008

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT

Citation

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (In Liquidation) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV333/2007

The trial judge correctly found on the evidence that there was no agreement authorising the fixed monthly payments as expense reimbursements and that the payments constituted advances/loans within the meaning of section 157H of the Companies Ordinance which were repayable under section 157I; there was no basis for the appellate court to overturn those factual findings, so the appeal is dismissed.
15 Aug 2006

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN

Citation

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12021/1998

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the HK$38.76 million was advanced and received by D5 for the use of Mr Lo and Mr Kong (acting together) as a loan rather than as a concluded oral joint venture; KY001 and KY002 are insufficiently certain and in parts sham so their specific repayment/interest terms are not proved or enforced; plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of HK$28,260,000 (being the advance less prior repayments) with interest at 5% from 17 May 2001; Dr Lee was not proven to be a partner and counterclaims are dismissed.
15 Aug 2006

西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS

Citation

西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2183/2001

Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the payment was part of an oral joint venture; the plaintiffs proved an advance of HK$38.76 million was made to D5 as a loan but the precise contractual terms in KY001 and KY002 were not proved and are unreliable; therefore plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of HK$28,260,000 with interest; counterclaims dismissed and specified defendants held liable.
3 Dec 2004

SHINE EMPIRE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SAN PO KONG MANSION AND OTHERS

Citation

SHINE EMPIRE LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SAN PO KONG MANSION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3444/2001

On construction of the Assignment and Deed of Mutual Covenant the Plaintiff owned the roof and the parapet walls; the 1st Defendant failed to prove adverse possession (no sufficient factual possession or animus possidendi); the grant of licences to install telecom equipment encroached on Plaintiff's property and amounted to trespass; the 1st Defendant was unjustly enriched by licence fees and Plaintiff is entitled to restitution/damages (quantum to be assessed).
29 Jul 1996

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1519/1996

The appeal is dismissed. The High Court held that s.22A of the Arbitration Ordinance, by using the unqualified term "interest" and by preserving other powers to award interest, empowers arbitrators to award compound interest where, in the exercise of their discretion and having regard to the circumstances and principles of compensation, such an award is appropriate; the arbitrator's awards of compound interest were within jurisdiction and were properly exercised.