Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sham contract

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

KAISER FINANCEING COMPANY LTD v. CHEN JIARONG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 851
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1998/2023

The judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the Master's grant of unconditional leave to defend because the defendant raised an arguable, non‑incredible sham defence supported by objective circumstances and contemporaneous material (delay in demand, contrasting conduct on a separate loan, WeChat message, bank records, unusual wording in the agreement), such that summary disposal would be inappropriate; it was unnecessary to decide s18(1) compliance although a breach was arguable.
3 Dec 2025

LI LAM v. HOILUNG GROUP INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5896
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA26/2025

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Company's grounds are in substance factual challenges dressed as errors of law, there is no arguable error of law, the Tribunal adequately considered the evidence including sham allegations, and the DC Action judgment was inadmissible and irrelevant to the employment status question, so no reasonable prospect of success on appeal exists.
18 Mar 2022

PATRICK JAMES JOSEPH O’MARA v. CHIN SHAU TONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 768
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1253/2019

The defendant failed to discharge the high burden required to obtain a stay: Hong Kong is an appropriate forum with significant connections to the defendant and the dispute, no substantial or difficult issues of Swiss law were identified, and alternative forums (Switzerland or England) were not shown to be clearly or distinctly more appropriate; therefore the stay application is dismissed.
11 Dec 2020

MOHAMMAD KHURSHID QAZI v. KARBHARI JAL NADIRSHAW t/a JAL N. KARBHARI & CO, SOLICITORS & NOTARIES

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1165
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3838/2019

The court found the plaintiff had clearly admitted the 2nd Agreement was a sham at the Labour Tribunal and the plaintiff's own documentary evidence contradicted his unpaid salary claims, rendering the 2nd Agreement claims doomed to fail and pursued to harass; accordingly indemnity costs were appropriate, to be taxed on High Court scale up to and including the transfer hearing and on District Court scale thereafter, but a certificate for two counsel was declined and one counsel only was certified.
19 Oct 2020

MOHAMMAD KHURSHID QAZI v. KARBHARI JAL NADIRSHAW t/a JAL N. KARBHARI & CO, SOLICITORS & NOTARIES

Citation

[2020] HKDC 928
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3838/2019

The contemporaneous documentary evidence (salary records, Employer's Returns, plaintiff's tax returns and MPF records) consistently showed varied salary payments and undermined the plaintiff's account; the plaintiff lacked credibility, had admitted the arrangements were a sham in the Labour Tribunal, and therefore the unpaid salary and related contractual claims failed; however the plaintiff was entitled to statutory long service payment and one month's wages in lieu calculated on the last full month wages of HK$4,500, reduced by MPF benefits withdrawn, yielding net awards of HK$9,110 (long s…
4 Mar 2020

X v. JEMMY CHIEN (also known as CHIEN, CHING YU or 簡慶裕)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT31/2019

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to set aside the arbitral awards and granted the defendant leave to enforce them because the arbitrator correctly found on the evidence that the Defendant was the true contracting party, the arbitrator had considered parol evidence and was entitled to make credibility and factual findings, and the plaintiff failed to establish that enforcement would offend Hong Kong public policy or that the arbitration agreement was invalid.
24 Mar 2017

GREATER CHINA CAPITAL INC. v. GBTIMES LTD

Citation

GREATER CHINA CAPITAL INC. v. GBTIMES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1455/2015

The court held that the Statement of Claim was not defective and that, on the evidence before it, the defendant did not establish a real and triable defence of sham or other pleaded defences sufficient to defeat summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment on the liquidated claim for unpaid invoices (and interest) was appropriate and the appeal from the Master's orders was dismissed.
24 Mar 2016

WONG KIN v. HIM KEE FOOD DISTRIBUTION CO LTD

Citation

WONG KIN v. HIM KEE FOOD DISTRIBUTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1771/2012

On the multifactorial assessment the applicant was an employee of Futer, Futer was the direct employer and Him Kee, as principal contractor who subcontracted delivery work to Futer and turned a blind eye to lack of EC cover, is liable under the Employees Compensation Ordinance to pay compensation to the applicant.
10 Nov 2015

THIAW DOUDOU BADIANE v. WILLIAM E. CONNOR & ASSOCIATES LTD

Citation

THIAW DOUDOU BADIANE v. WILLIAM E. CONNOR & ASSOCIATES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA37/2015

The Tribunal's factual finding that the Hong Kong Agreement was a sham (or was never performed) was supported by evidence and cannot be impugned; accordingly the claimant was in truth employed by the Mainland company which discharged the relevant termination obligations, and the claimant is not entitled to the termination payments claimed from the defendant.
30 Jan 2014

KAGA (H.K.) ELECTRONICS LTD v. SUN CUPID TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD

Citation

KAGA (H.K.) ELECTRONICS LTD v. SUN CUPID TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2088/2013

Default judgment was not set aside because the defendant provided an unacceptable explanation for default and the defence lacked reasonable prospects; the PO was a genuine, binding commercial contract with LLT materials appropriated in a deliverable state with the buyer's implied assent so that property passed to Sun Cupid under SOGO s20 and Kaga was entitled to sue for the price, justifying the default judgment for JPY12,500,000.