Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acknowledgement of debt

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2022

WONG WAI LAM 對 FUNG TAT YUEN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1020
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5488/2018

The court accepted the two signed acknowledgement of debt documents as establishing total principal of HK$411,572, deducted the admitted payments of HK$136,182 leaving HK$275,390 outstanding; the defendant's account of paying RMB300,000 to the collector was inherently implausible, unsupported by receipts or credible corroboration, raised unresolved currency conversion and timing issues and was rejected; accordingly the defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding principal, interest and costs.
2 Dec 2021

CYBER INSURANCE BROKERS LTD v. RELEVANT MARKETING (HK) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1393
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1950/2019

On objective construction the 2016 and 2017 written agreements effected share sales which carried assets and liabilities (save the expressly excluded Speedinsurance business); the 9 February 2018 audit confirmation, signed and chopped by the defendant and countersigned by the plaintiff, was a quantifiable and unqualified admission of indebtedness of HK$2,017,803.50; the defendant failed to adduce evidence of any agreement to write off the debt or of unilateral mistake sufficient to rescind, therefore the plaintiff established its claim on the balance of probabilities.
8 Apr 2021

YUNG WAI MAN v. LEUNG KWOK PONG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 896
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA315/2020

Defendant's defences were inherently improbable, lacking corroborative contemporaneous evidence and contradicted by his admitted signature on a one-page Chinese Agreement that acknowledged indebtedness; therefore he failed to show a real or bona fide defence and summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
13 Jan 2021

CHARM MASTER ENTERPRISES LTD v. GRAND T G GOLD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2011

The court refused the stay and refused to extend time because the 1st Defendant failed to show strong prospects of success that would justify a stay; the Deputy High Court Judge’s imposition of the HK$12,000,000 condition fell within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement; the 1st Defendant produced no properly affirmed evidence to justify an extension or a bank guarantee in lieu; therefore the summons was dismissed and costs awarded to the 2nd Defendant.
12 Nov 2020

CHARM MASTER ENTERPRISES LTD v. GRAND T G GOLD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2011

Summary judgment and interim payment based on the promissory notes were refused because triable disputes existed between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant on presentment and the existence of the Trust; however the two letters of acknowledgement constituted a separate Acknowledgement of Debt supported by the 2nd Defendant's forbearance to sue, making the 1st Defendant's defence to that separate agreement shadowy; accordingly conditional leave to defend was granted to the 1st Defendant subject to payment into court of HK$12,000,000 within 28 days as security for the 2nd Defendant's countercla…
26 Nov 2019

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. TAI YUE FOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2888
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6983/1999

The Court held that an application to discharge a charging order under Order 50 r7 / s20B(4) is a proper remedy where the charging order was obtained on ex parte material containing a materially misleading statement of law (here an incorrect assertion that s.4(4) Limitation Ordinance did not apply to enforcement proceedings). Applying the Limitation Ordinance and authorities, the Court held the 4 December 2017 letter was a denial of liability (confession and avoidance) and did not constitute an acknowledgement under s.23(3), and accordingly allowed the appeal and discharged the Charging Order.
18 Mar 2019

TONG CHOI YAU v. KONG, SIN MAN (also known as SIN MAN KONG, KEN S KONG, KENNETH S KONG and SINMAN S KONG)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 640
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1056/2014

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant executed the Agreement or was bound by it; given the inherent improbabilities in the plaintiff's explanation and absence of corroborating contemporaneous documentation, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the defendant is liable to pay USD 668,457.01 under the Agreement.
23 Jan 2018

YEUNG TAK WAI v. G & G TRADING LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW8/2016

The respondent failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds: the claims were prima facie time‑barred unless acknowledged; the 2014 audited financial statements signed by the director constituted an acknowledgement within the limitation period; challenges to lawfulness or precise quantum without specifying corrected figures did not constitute substantial grounds; beneficial ownership disputes are irrelevant to a member’s claim to declared dividends; therefore the petition should succeed and a winding‑up order be made unless the company pays the sums claimed.
24 Jul 2017

LION ARCHER INVESTMENTS LTD v. IAN JOHN PEARSON

Citation

LION ARCHER INVESTMENTS LTD v. IAN JOHN PEARSON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5684/2016

The appeal was dismissed because it was not plain and obvious that the Subject Email could not amount to an acknowledgement under Limitation Ordinance s23(3); the existence of a Variation Agreement and surrounding factual context were disputed and could not be resolved on affidavits, so the matter requires trial; therefore the master's refusal to strike out was correct and upheld.
20 May 2014

LAM MIN WING FRANKLIN v. GREAT INTENT INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

LAM MIN WING FRANKLIN v. GREAT INTENT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW268/2013

The court accepted that the company had validly acknowledged indebtedness by the two letters and that the petitioner produced sufficient supporting evidence of advances; the respondent failed to produce coherent factual evidence to substantiate claims of undue influence, misrepresentation or duress and did not rebut the documentary evidence; the Labour Tribunal jurisdiction point did not defeat the petition because the advances alone established insolvency; accordingly the winding up petition succeeded and a winding up order was made.