Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contribution

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

FALCON INSURANCE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD v. SUN PROFIT LOGISTICS (HK) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1843
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4224/2023

Because the insured breached the Policy's notification/assistance conditions and the insurer was obliged by statute to pay compensation, the insurer was entitled to be indemnified by the insured under Section 42(3) ECO and the Policy's recovery clause; the settlements and the insurer's legal costs were assessed as reasonable and awarded in full, with interest and costs to follow.
30 Oct 2025

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN (as executrix of the estate of CHEN TSING KWAN, deceased) AND OTHERS v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5099
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA570/2014

The court found on the balance of all evidence that the deceased father was the beneficial owner of the disputed funds and of the sums used to fund Parkview Centre and Loong Wan Building; the defendant held those funds as trustee/nominee for the father; accordingly the entries in Loong San and Loong Wan recorded as owing to the defendant were beneficially the father's and the defendant was ordered to account and to repay specified sums; defendant's counterclaims and acquiescence defence failed.
30 Oct 2025

LOONG SAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL also known as CHEN TING SAN and DANIEL CHEN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5099
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2568/2013

On the totality of contemporaneous material, conduct and expert evidence the court found the deceased father was the beneficial owner of the funds that were held in the defendant's bank accounts and of the withdrawals from Leeloong; the defendant acted as trustee/nominee and was liable to account. The loans recorded in Loong San and Loong Wan (HK$53m and HK$54m) were funded by the father's money and the defendant must account for and repay the misappropriated net withdrawals; defendant's debtor-creditor/loan argument was rejected as inconsistent and a late fabrication.
6 Aug 2025

林世傑對吳嘉緯及另二人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1288
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3568/2019

The court found the settlement was bona fide and reasonable; accordingly the first defendant is liable to contribute fully (100%) to the settlement. The rental/management contract, properly construed, imposes on EC Group (the lessee) contractual responsibility to bear third‑party liabilities arising during the rental period; EC Group must indemnify the second defendant in full for the settlement and costs. First defendant and EC Group are jointly and severally ordered to pay HK$300,000 to the second defendant with interest from judgment date at the judgment rate and to pay costs as ordered (c…
28 Mar 2022

CHENG MAN TO 對 LAW KAM HUNG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 268
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI926/2018

On the balance of probabilities the court found two rear‑end collisions occurred; WONG (First Third Party) was negligent in initiating the primary impact and bore greater causal responsibility; under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance the court apportioned contribution 80% to WONG and 20% to LAW, allowed recovery of a reasonable settlement sum and reasonable costs (subject to adjustment), and exercised s53(1) to order contribution towards Defendant's main‑action defence costs related to assessment of damages.
19 Mar 2021

CHAN TAT YAN v. LO YIN YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 205
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1230/2019

The 2nd Defendant was entitled to indemnity/contribution from the 1st Defendant and Third Party: the settlement of HK$400,000 was reasonable; the plaintiff’s damages were assessed (PSLA HK$300,000; pre-trial loss HK$450,456.61; special damages HK$85,176) and reduced by 20% for contributory negligence, and the insurer’s agreed legal costs (HK$180,000) and reasonable insurer costs (HK$100,000) are recoverable, resulting in total assessed damages of HK$680,000 with interest and costs as ordered.
7 Jan 2021

CHAN SUWANNA v. SYNERGIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1116/2018

Section 27 Limitation Ordinance, which sets a 3-year limit for personal injury damage claims, does not apply to a defendant's third party claim for contribution or indemnity; such claims constitute separate actions governed by section 6 LO and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance, and Order 16 permits issuing third party proceedings while the main action remains pending; accordingly the Master's order granting leave to issue the third party notice was correctly upheld and the third party's summons to rescind/set aside was rightly dismissed.
25 May 2020

MISSION MARKETING LTD v. CHAN YUET FOON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP258/2014

The court found the cockloft/false ceiling and the trench were unauthorized building works and there was a real risk of enforcement such that the Defendants could not give good title; Plaintiff was entitled to rescind the agreement and recover the deposit; the Third Party was not liable because the Defendants' loss would have occurred irrespective of any breach by the Third Party.
14 May 2020

LAM PUI YIN v. WAH ON ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 601
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI766/2016

Default judgment established the 2nd defendant's liability; the settlement of $1,380,400 paid by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff was found bona fide and reasonable on the evidence and the 2nd defendant must indemnify the 1st defendant for that sum and for related costs paid to the plaintiff ($222,000) with interest, plus the 1st defendant's costs of the contribution proceedings to be taxed if not agreed.
27 Mar 2019

SO TAI KWAN JEFFREY v. SO LAI KUEN SHIRLEY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2474/2018

The court found that the plaintiff funded the purchase and associated costs and that the defendant's mortgage payments were made for her occupation rather than as contributions conferring a beneficial interest; consequently the plaintiff was held to be the sole beneficial owner of the property.