Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conclusive evidence clause

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. LIN HAIYAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP662/2025

The court found that the Bank established the outstanding liabilities secured by the Mortgage and Guarantees on the evidence, the alleged calculation discrepancy was satisfactorily explained (or de minimis/typographical) and not a manifest error, and the surrender proceeds of the insurance policies had been applied as demonstrated by the Bank's evidence, therefore the relief in the originating summons was granted.
19 May 2025

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD 對 HUI KAM SHING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 817
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4366/2022

The court refused the extension of time because the delay (approx. eight weeks) combined with the lack of a arguable appeal meant no sufficient cause to extend; fresh evidence was rejected because the defendant failed Ladd v Marshall's first limb (he could have obtained and filed the material earlier) and the proffered evidence was neither clearly credible nor likely to change the result; on the merits the defendant had no real or bona fide defence to the summary judgment claim because the bank's monthly statements and the conclusive evidence clause established the indebtedness absent any obv…
4 Feb 2025

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LTD (HONG KONG BRANCH) v. TOTAL ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA513/2023

The Court held that the Guarantee imposed a primary and concurrent liability allowing the Bank to demand payment without prior exhaustion against the Borrower; the Bank's demand and service to the guarantor's last known address were effective under the Guarantee; the Company failed to produce credible evidence of lack of director authority, of a common intention constructive trust affecting the Bank, or of a sham; consequently there was no triable issue and summary judgment for the Bank was granted for HK$250,880,311.30 plus interest with indemnity costs to the Bank.
31 Dec 2024

ICBC INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD v. TRIPLEX INTERNATIONAL BIOSCIENCES GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3609
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1828/2022

The plaintiff is entitled to the assessed interest sum because the Restated Agreement specifies the interest and default rates, the lender's calculations are conclusive under the conclusive evidence clause in the absence of any demonstrable manifest error by the defendants, and the defendants failed to participate or challenge the assessment; costs are awarded on a summary basis accordingly.
20 Nov 2024

GAO YANLING v. CREDIT SUISSE AG, HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1083
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV4/2023

The Court dismissed the appeal: the applicant failed to particularize and prove a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the quantification of the Debt; the AOTC conclusive-evidence clauses barred the late, blanket challenge in the absence of timely written objections or obvious manifest errors; the respondent’s exercise of contractual discretion to determine close-out/termination amounts was not shown to be irrational, arbitrary or a penalty on the evidence; UCO and Code arguments did not oust contractual liability.
24 May 2022

JTS MERCHANT CAPITAL LTD v. ALWAYS ONLINE TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA242/2015

The court found the plaintiff breached the factoring Agreement by making unauthorised deductions, charging commissions on notional/unpaid disbursements and failing to provide required monthly accounts/particulars; the defendant lawfully terminated and is entitled to recovery of sums wrongfully retained. Judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim for HK$3,233,807.41 with interest and costs.
29 Jun 2020

RE LI MAN HOO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB802/2018

The petition is dismissed because the statutory demand and petition relied on incorrect figures affecting a substantial portion of the claimed debt and the petitioner failed to discharge its burden under Rule 70 to prove matters the debtor had put in dispute, establishing a bona fide dispute on the debt.
15 Nov 2019

HEC FINANCE 03 LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA779/2019

Summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted because there is a genuine factual dispute — specifically whether defendants knew of an arrangement releasing secured shares — which cannot be resolved without cross-examination and which, if proved for defendants, could render the guarantees unenforceable; costs of the summons were ordered in the cause with certification for two counsel each.
26 Apr 2019

HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA878/2011

The Leave Summons is dismissed because (1) the Appeal Order refusing the Violet Amendments fell within Order 59 r21(2)(i) as it refused to allow introduction of a new claim/defence, so the court had no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against that order; and in any event (2) D2 failed the s14AA(4) test as the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success—the CEC applied to amount due (including liability), the Violet Amendments introduced new, inconsistent and inherently unarguable fraud allegations lacking particularity and causing material prejudice—therefore leave to appeal mu…
17 Dec 2018

HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2721
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA878/2011

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed amendments (the Violet Amendments) did not disclose a serious prospect of overcoming the conclusive evidence clause: the alleged fraud and manifest errors were not sufficiently particularised or credible, the issues raised required extensive investigation (not a manifest error), and allowing the amendments would cause undue prejudice and delay; accordingly D2's application to amend was refused and the registrar's order was upheld.