Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unjust enrichment

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

BUILD KING CONSTRUCTION LTD formerly known as KADEN CONSTRUCTION LTD v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2270
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2023

The proposed amendment was dismissed because it did not plead a true abatement defence: it failed to allege diminution in value of the contracted work ('the thing itself') and instead advanced claims framed as overpayment/unjust enrichment and breach requiring recoupment, lacked requisite particulars, was prolix and inconsistent, and thus was legally defective and bound to fail; accordingly leave to re‑amend was refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
24 Apr 2026

GAO YING v. LIN SHUJIA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1753/2024

Plaintiff proved beneficial ownership and unjust enrichment; the 2nd Defendant failed to prove a contractual relationship with the 1st Defendant or that it provided value to the 1st Defendant, the documentary evidence showed USDT transfers from the intermediary preceded or were disconnected from the 2nd Defendant’s receipts so any change of position was not shown to be in reliance on the receipts, and the 2nd Defendant gave nothing for at least one tranche; therefore its defences failed and summary judgment was granted for HK$2,050,000 with interest and costs.
23 Apr 2026

BPI TRADING (SG) PTE LTD v. BAIG MOHAMMED ADIL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1726/2025

On the material before the court the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case on the pleaded causes of action, the defendant has assets in Hong Kong and there is a real risk of dissipation tied to the alleged dishonest scheme; the balance of convenience therefore favors continuation of the Mareva injunction, and Norwich Pharmacal and banker’s books disclosure from HSBC is justified because there is cogent evidence of serious tortious conduct and disclosure is likely to yield substantial and confined benefits to the plaintiff.
22 Apr 2026

UBE SINGAPORE PTE LTD v. TONGX CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA157/2023

On the facts and documents, plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that D1 was enriched by US$998,750 directly at plaintiff's expense and that enrichment was unjust by reason of lack of legitimate basis and plaintiff's mistake; D3 was enriched by US$194,000 and, applying Re Hallett, that sum is presumed to be plaintiff's money so enrichment was at plaintiff's expense and unjust; no defences were shown; judgment awarded restitution against D1 for US$998,750 and against D3 for US$194,000 with interest, continuation of the Mareva injunction for 6 months, and costs.
17 Apr 2026

NEW DELTA TRADING CO., LTD v. SOUTH CHINA DEVELOPMENT (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1492/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the EPC contains a valid and sufficiently broad exclusive jurisdiction clause covering the Plaintiff’s claims; the Plaintiff failed to mount a pleaded specific attack or produce cogent evidence that the EJC itself was procured by fraud; separability applies so challenges to the main agreement do not displace the EJC; on the facts the dispute and connecting factors point to Shanghai and, even absent the EJC, forum non conveniens would have justified a stay in favour of the Shanghai Court.
31 Mar 2026

WAH TAI HING FOODS MANUFACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER v. FOK CHIU MING MILTON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA127/2021

The 2nd Defendant received HK$6,419,730.38 from the 1st Defendant and was unjustly enriched at the Plaintiffs' expense. The Exchange Agreement (HKD for RMB transfers) was proven and constituted domestic illegality under AMLO (unlicensed money changing/remittance conducted as a business) and foreign illegality under PRC Forex Regulations (matching balances/disguised sale and purchase under Art.45). Those illegalties negate good faith and bar the defences of bona fide purchaser and change of position with respect to the Exchange Agreement. The tenancy receipts (RMB216,000/HK$244,080) constitute…
27 Mar 2026

LIE MING, the Committee of the Estate of HJF v. CHENG KAM WA THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1803
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP3/2024

Refusal of Retention Order because Applicant's sole legal basis was an Agreement of doubtful binding effect: if the 2016 Will prevails D2 had no authority to bind the estate; if the 2020 Will prevails the Agreement was entered into pre-probate by a representative acting without authority and any liability is personal to D2 not to the estate; unjust enrichment was not pleaded in the Applicant's affirmations so cannot be relied on; consequentially court exercises discretion against permitting an interpleader to retain estate funds as partial satisfaction of the Applicant's charges.
24 Mar 2026

FU LAM LAM v. FU TING TING

Citation

[2026] HKCA 458
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP169/2025

The Court refused leave to appeal because the Plaintiff failed to show the Judge's primary factual findings were plainly wrong or that the intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; accordingly leave was denied, no stay was granted, and costs were ordered against the Plaintiff.
18 Mar 2026

JOEL ENRIQUE VIVEROS GALINDO v. TAN ZHIRONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA733/2022

On the pleaded facts the Plaintiff established a conspiracy to defraud, knowing receipt, unjust enrichment and that it would be unconscionable for the 3rd Defendant to retain the Vantary Shares; accordingly default relief was warranted without trial in respect of the 3rd Defendant, including a declaration of constructive trust, mandatory transfer, a 12‑month injunction, accounts and assessed costs.
12 Mar 2026

FANG YUE AND OTHERS v. SHING YIM PING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1421
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA845/2022

The court accepted plaintiffs' evidence and contemporaneous/subsequent documentary evidence (notably the Second List and email exchanges) and rejected defendant's testimony as unreliable and internally inconsistent; on that basis the court found that the transfers were loans under the four alleged agreements and awarded the plaintiffs the outstanding principal and interest. The withdrawn Small Claims counterclaim could not be relied upon for set-off.