Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Allegation of forgery

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2025

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. DELAY, GILDA H. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1161
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3298/2018

The promissory notes were valid and not proved forged; the stated interest rates were lawful fixed simple rates and did not exceed statutory limits; default interest under the contractual clause and s22 of the Ordinance is payable from the applicable default dates until payment; hearsay evidence of TamAng was given no weight because primary defendant declined to give evidence and the witness lacked personal knowledge; the alleged debt recovery practices were not established as unlawful or harassing and the counterclaim fails; judgment was ordered for outstanding sums with directions to the pl…
17 Jan 2024

楊麗祥對蔡美華作為2022年6月16日土地審裁處命令就針對對上述的訴訟而被委任為已故陳汝生的遺產代表人

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 3
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1573/2021

Tribunal held respondent failed to prove any beneficial equitable interest arising from the alleged 1975 oral agreement; the stamped written tenancy agreements were genuine and binding; applicant was not entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because purchaser failed to inspect and make proper inquiries; mesne profits awarded at HK$7,000 per month; order for recovery of vacant possession and costs made in favour of applicant.
28 Nov 2022

CANARA BANK v. GRACE ON LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the judge found the defendants’ forgery defence inherently implausible and unsupported by cogent and compelling evidence, delayed in being raised, lacking particulars or police report, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (including demands and a July 2018 company letter) and thus did not raise a triable issue to defeat summary judgment; master’s summary judgment was therefore upheld.
21 Mar 2022

MULTIFOR ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HO CHOW PING DANNY t/a BILLION SUCCESS CONSULTANT CO

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA234/2020

On the evidence as a whole the December Agreement was the concluded operative contract, the defendant's assertions (including that the November Agreement was operative, that the parties agreed variations, and that the December Agreement was forged) lacked cogent supporting contemporaneous evidence and were not capable of being believed such that no real triable issue was raised; summary judgment was therefore properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Aug 2014

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV281/2012

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge's acceptance of the official allotment resolution was not plainly wrong and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on allotment; but on the share transfer issue the judge had no proper pleaded or evidential basis to invalidate the transfers by relying on an unpleaded finding of the deceased's lack of intention and the circumstantial evidence was not compelling enough to prove forgery. Applying legal principle (including Re Rose), the transfers could not be held void as a matter of law; the Court allowed the appeal by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th Defendants…
14 May 2013

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA523/2008

The letters relied upon by Philip's Group were not self-contained open offers limited to the issues before the court and were made in circumstances where Without Prejudice settlement time was misused for tactical advantage; accordingly they could not attract the proposed costs sanctions and the plaintiff, having succeeded on the substantive thrust of her case, was entitled to her costs to be paid by the defendants who opposed her (the 1st, 4th, 5th and 7th defendants), including costs for essential witnesses, with taxation if not agreed.
14 Apr 2010

KWOK SUK YIN v. WONG CHU PONG AND OTHERS

Citation

KWOK SUK YIN v. WONG CHU PONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP11/2007

Master's refusal to allow inspection of the original will was wrong because the plaintiff had reasonable grounds to seek expert examination and the request could not properly be characterised as a fishing expedition; accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and an order is made for release of the original will for inspection; applications for discovery and exchange of expert reports are adjourned; fresh evidence on appeal is not admitted for lack of special grounds under Order 58 r.1(5).
18 Dec 2007

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEN JIANREN

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEN JIANREN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2844/2001

Master's order renewing the writ and deeming service on 16 November 2006 is upheld: the writ could not be renewed under O.6 r.8 but exceptional facts justified relief under O.2 r.1 and O.3 r.5; the Defendant received notice via his solicitors, suffered no prejudice, and Plaintiff's efforts to serve from its records were reasonable, therefore renewal and deemed service were proper and appeal dismissed.
24 Feb 2006

CANNIE PO KING PANG v. CELESTIAL SECURITIES LTD

Citation

CANNIE PO KING PANG v. CELESTIAL SECURITIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3319/2002

Where a respondent swears by affidavit that certain records do not exist and no credible evidence to the contrary is offered, the court will refuse intrusive discovery or microscopic computer inspection as a fishing expedition; applicants must show relevance tied to the pleaded issues and a realistic prospect of locating the information requested; costs will be awarded against parties who cause wasteful interlocutory steps or breach practice directions.
6 Nov 2003

FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU

Citation

FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA574/2002

The court ordered unconditional release of the 25 original invoices to the police because the police require the documents to perform their statutory duties and the court lacks jurisdiction to impose conditions on the police's investigative use of those documents.