Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Usury

Legal area

Court

15 Sept 2021

TOTAL EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. ZHANG JUNHUA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2590
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP513/2016

Defendant breached the loan agreement by non-payment; the court rejected the Defendant’s testimony and found no collusion between the Plaintiff and Ngai Fung/agents so ss27/29 MLO were not contravened; accordingly the full sum of HK$1.35 million was advanced and the contractual interest rate of 36% p.a. was enforceable (subject to MLO provisos) and Plaintiff entitled to recover principal HK$1.35 million, two unpaid instalments totalling HK$81,000, and pre- and post-judgment interest at 36% p.a. as quantified by the court; claim for vacant possession was not pursued by Plaintiff prior to judgm…
13 Aug 2012

ONTONE FINANCE CO LTD v. MS LEUNG LAI CHING, MARGARET AND ANOTHER

Citation

ONTONE FINANCE CO LTD v. MS LEUNG LAI CHING, MARGARET AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA372/2011

The first defendant's full repayment defence was implausible and unsupported; although clause for increased default rate arguably contravened s22(1)(c), the court may exercise s22(2) in summary proceedings where equities permit; because the plaintiff did not seek to charge the higher default rate, maintained full records and showed no sharp practice while the defendant acted in bad faith, it was equitable to excise the offending paragraph and enforce the loan agreements otherwise; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding sum with contractual interest from…
26 Aug 2009

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING

Citation

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2707/2008

Defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defence that the Plaintiff was an unlicensed money lender or that the Instrument as modified was extortionate; the original judgment of 18 March 2009 is upheld except the penalty interest award under the Deed of Forbearance (US$2,854,022.75) is set aside and the Defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend that penalty claim.
21 Nov 2007

FLYING MORTGAGE LTD v. CHAN KUEN KWONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

FLYING MORTGAGE LTD v. CHAN KUEN KWONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5004/2006

Paragraph (h) of the loan agreements, providing for increased default interest, contravened s22(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance and was therefore unenforceable; the plaintiff failed to establish severance or inequitable circumstances warranting enforcement under s22(2); upon judgment the contractual relationship ended and interest on unpaid principal is governed by s50 DCO, so Master Lai's application of judgment rate to outstanding principal was correct; appeal dismissed.
14 Oct 1999

WONG MING WAI v. TSUI KAM MING t/a TUNG TAI CONSTRUCTION CO.

Citation

WONG MING WAI v. TSUI KAM MING t/a TUNG TAI CONSTRUCTION CO.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV179/1999

The trial judge's factual findings fixed the repayment date at 20 December 1994 and the agreed repayable sum produced an effective annual interest rate of 62.39%, which exceeds 60% under s24 Cap.163; therefore the loan agreement is unenforceable and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Jan 1994

WONG KWAI FUN v. LI FUNG

Citation

WONG KWAI FUN v. LI FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5810/1986

Court found on the balance of probabilities that a loan of $148,500 was made with post-dated cheques and that the effective interest exceeded 60% (about 400% p.a.), bringing the transactions within s.24 so the loan and all securities (power of attorney, 18/4/86 sale agreement, suit assignment) were illegal, unenforceable and void; court exercised s.25 power to reopen the transaction and ordered defendant to repay a reduced sum of $146,500; plaintiff was denied subrogation because the sums used to discharge prior mortgages did not establish an equitable subrogation in plaintiff's favour and, o…
5 Nov 1987

THE QUEEN v. LAU PING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAU PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC143/1987

The Court found that the trial judge reasonably assessed the credibility of prosecution witnesses, that the documentary and oral evidence overwhelmingly supported convictions for triad involvement, illegal money‑lending and intimidation, and that the identified errors and discrepancies were insufficient to create a lurking doubt; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentence upheld.
29 Nov 1986

THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHUN HUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHUN HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC619/1986

The Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was connected with the operation of an ongoing money‑lending business: the evidence showed a one‑off loan, unreliable witness testimony on collection activity, and insufficient proof of continuity or that the defendant was more than an assistant in a single transaction; accordingly acquit on s29(1)(a), while guilty plea to the usury charge (s24(1)) stands.