Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alleged forgery

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2025

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. VILLASFER, ANDRENEE M. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1161
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3299/2018

The promissory notes and loan agreements were valid and enforceable; the plaintiff acted reasonably within the Licensing Conditions in attempting to locate and contact the borrower; the interest rates charged were lawful as simple fixed interest and did not exceed statutory caps; default interest is payable on overdue sums pursuant to s22 and must be computed as simple default interest from the date of default until payment; the defendants failed to prove forgery or unlawful debt collection; the counterclaim is dismissed; judgment entered for plaintiff for outstanding sums and costs with dire…
21 Jun 2024

李汶禧對楊美芳

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1011
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1310/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's account and contemporaneous handwritten documents (the third IOU and the 31 October 2015 loan confirmation) as authentic and corroborative, and therefore held the first defendant liable as a borrower for RMB100,000 with agreed interest; the first defendant's forgery and witness-only defenses were rejected due to inconsistency and lack of supporting evidence.
29 Apr 2020

LIN REN XIANG v. KO YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP557/2014

Ko and Gold Glory are awarded party-and-party costs because Ko was the overall winner on the central issue (the increase and allotment was with Lin's knowledge and consent); there was no conduct by Ko taking the case out of the norm to justify depriving her of costs or ordering indemnity costs; Gold Glory being a named defendant is entitled to seek costs and any assessment of quantum is for taxation.
22 Jan 2018

趙春雨及另一人 v. 裘麗虹及另五人

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3071/2016

The Court refused the Order 29 preservation application because the Defendants did not have possession of the originals (they were affirmed to have been handed to PRC police) and because the Plaintiffs’ objective could be achieved by Order 24; accordingly the exercise of discretion to make an Order 29 preservation order was declined and the Court ordered disclosure of copies of six Disputed Documents and adjourned the Order 24 application with directions for pleadings/affirmations.
14 Oct 2005

YEUNG TAK SHING MARCO v. NG MAN KWONG

Citation

YEUNG TAK SHING MARCO v. NG MAN KWONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6543/2004

The requested particulars sought evidential detail (source of funds and the author of the acknowledgement) rather than clarification of the pleaded case; the pleaded general nature was already clear, the requests amounted to a fishing expedition and were premature given disclosure and exchange of witness statements – accordingly the appeals succeed and the orders requiring those particulars are set aside.
11 Jul 2001

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1479/2001

The Court dismissed the appeal because the defendant failed to prove that a stay was necessary: no criminal charge had been laid so Article 11 protections were not yet engaged, the risk of prejudice to any future criminal trial was minimal and speculative, and the Judge was not plainly wrong to refuse a stay; however the in camera order was set aside because publicity requirements under Article 10 mean judgments from in camera hearings must generally be made public and an in camera trial was inappropriate here.

Hong Kong Case Law

PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD v. VILLASFER, ANDRENEE M. AND ANOTHER

李汶禧 對 楊美芳

LIN REN XIANG v. KO YIN AND OTHERS

趙春雨及另一人 v. 裘麗虹及另五人

YEUNG TAK SHING MARCO v. NG MAN KWONG

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

李汶禧對楊美芳