Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contemporaneous documents

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2025

LO FONG HUNG v. FUNG YUEN KWAN, VERONICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2351
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2219/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found that Veronica Fung held the 7,000 shares and acted as director as a nominee for Sam Pa based on contemporaneous evidence, practices of Sam Pa, inherent probabilities and inconsistencies in Fung's explanations; however the petitioner failed to prove the existence of the pleaded oral Co-operation Agreement and, in any event, did not prove that Sam Pa had authority to bind Fung, so the Co-operation Agreement cannot be enforced against Fung.
23 Oct 2024

KONG SHUI MAN v. TANG CHI LUEN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1715
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2336/2022

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's evidence and found an oral agreement from mid-2015 to October 2016 that the Property would be co-owned as a matrimonial home; the plaintiff made direct contributions (approximately half of initial outlays), became joint borrower and made ongoing mortgage contributions, and it is unconscionable for defendant to assert sole beneficial ownership; accordingly the defendant holds the Property on a common intention constructive trust for the parties in equal shares; the defendant's counterclaim in relation to the SCB Joint Account…
11 Jul 2024

HONG KONG BALANCE INTERNATIONAL TRADING & LOGISTICS CO., LTD v. KWOK YIK HUNG and NG KWOK WAI t/a ALPHA HEALTHCARE & TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1106
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3716/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge had considered the contemporaneous evidence, correctly found no concluded Second or Third Contracts and that Chan lacked authority, determined the Plaintiff lacked locus under the First Contract, and the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the s63A(2) threshold of interests of justice or demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success.
19 Mar 2024

CHAN WOON WAH t/a NGAI HING DECORATION COMPANY v. WONG CHI PING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 422
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ602/2019

On the balance of probabilities the parties entered into the Revised Oral Agreement evidenced by contemporaneous WhatsApp communications, handwritten lists and an invoice; the Defendant made unconditional payments totalling HK$473,000 pursuant to that agreement and remains liable for the outstanding HK$100,000; the Defendant's counterclaims fail for lack of credible, tested evidence and causation and are dismissed.
18 Jul 2022

IDEA PERFECT HOLDINGS LTD v. GATEWAY ASIA RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1060
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV495/2021

The 2nd defendant failed to satisfy the first Ladd v Marshall condition because the documents were available earlier and he did not show reasonable diligence in obtaining them; he also failed the second condition because the proposed documents were not sufficiently probative to affect the outcome given the express loan agreements and overwhelming contemporaneous documentary evidence that contradicted his account; consequently leave to adduce the new evidence was refused and the application dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs on indemnity basis with CTFN's costs assessed at $350,000.
30 Sept 2021

ROSY CLOUD VENTURES LTD v. SUN SHAOFENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA35/2020

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds had a reasonable prospect of success; the judge found that there are triable issues as to the existence of the alleged oral agreement, the possibility of estoppel by convention on the defendant's factual case, and Cho's authority, and that the Receipt is a contemporaneous document lending believability to the defendant's case; conditional leave was not justified and the plaintiff gave no other reason in the interests of justice to permit an appeal.
4 Mar 2020

HAY DESIGN LTD v. HENG TAI CONTRACTING (INT’L) CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT58/2016

The Plaintiff failed to prove a concluded, enforceable oral Agreement in the terms alleged because essential terms (duration, capital contribution, allocation of management costs) were not agreed and contemporaneous documents (invoices, profit summaries) contradicted the Plaintiff's case; accordingly there was no Agreement and OC and LC did not fall within any such Agreement.
21 Jun 2019

CIRRUS DESIGN CONSULTANTS LTD v. KENNETH ROTHGORDT JOHANSEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 830
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1205/2013

The court preferred the plaintiff's contemporaneous evidence and documents, found D1 orally accepted the 2006 quotation and contracted with the plaintiff, found the plaintiff purchased and supplied the materials and performed the additional works, and therefore entered judgment against D1 for $371,552.5 and dismissed the claim against D2.
10 Sept 2009

CHAN KIN LAM v. SUNRAY CAVE LTD

Citation

CHAN KIN LAM v. SUNRAY CAVE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1997/2006

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged 2005 agreement: objective commercial circumstances, contemporaneous documents showing payments at HK$2,460 per trip, inherent implausibility of the long fixed-term high-rate contract, and the plaintiff's unreliable testimony made the defendant's account more likely; claim dismissed.
2 Feb 2007

GRANTER WOODWORK & DECORATION CO LTD v. HAI DA CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GRANTER WOODWORK & DECORATION CO LTD v. HAI DA CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT81/2002

The court rejected the Plaintiff's account as inherently inconsistent and contradicted by contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably Mr Gu's diary and banking timestamp) and more credible witnesses; it found no meeting or promise by Mr Gu and no concluded agreement with the 3rd Defendant; accordingly all contractual, misrepresentation and quantum meruit claims against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed and the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.