Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages and interest

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2025

YEUNG SIU YUNG v. FAN PUI WAN, MARGARET AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1211/2018

On the documentary and oral evidence the court found that D1 orchestrated a deliberate fraudulent scheme, D3 knowingly participated (active and passive), D2 received proceeds and thereby participated, and D4 (as D1's corporate vehicle) received and dissipated proceeds; the misrepresentations were false and made to induce payments which the plaintiff relied upon; defendants 1–4 are jointly and severally liable for unlawful means conspiracy and must pay HK$66,013,631.35 plus interest; post-judgment asset restraint and indemnity costs were justified.
11 Nov 2024

DESIGN THREE LTD 對 NG CHE TSUI trading as WING FUNG ENGINEERING COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1862
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5611/2019

The court accepted the handwriting expert opinion that the defendant's signature on the purported subcontract was probably his and found the factual matrix, documentary evidence and witness testimony (subject to limitations on variation claims) established a main contractor–subcontractor relationship. The court rejected defendant's account as not commercially credible. Variation works were not recoverable because plaintiff failed to prove prior notice and agreement. Accordingly defendant was liable to pay the outstanding contract balance under the subcontract; other claims were dismissed.
22 Feb 2024

MODERN GALA (MODELS) LTD v. TSE TSANG YAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1320/2015

Defendants failed to prove that payments to the Shenzhen factory were loans repayable by the plaintiff or that a quasi-partnership existed; the court found the 1st defendant liable to account for and pay HK$4,650,000 (and liable in equity/damages for related sums and LIP loss), the 2nd defendant liable for HK$750,000 and the 3rd defendant liable for HK$2,300,000; the 1st defendant's counterclaim was dismissed; claims on problematic transactions and removal of documents were not proved.
20 Jan 2023

ALCOHOL COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEMS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER v. LI CHI KONG, PETER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2336/2014

On the evidence the Mainland Chinese employment agreements were intended to be binding so defendant was employed by both P1 and P2; plaintiffs failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation or that the challenged receipts were false or submitted by defendant for his own benefit; defendant wilfully disobeyed lawful and reasonable requests for explanations and was validly summarily dismissed; defendant entitled to accrued annual leave pay of HK$44,583; plaintiffs' claims dismissed and counterclaim allowed in part.
11 Nov 2022

TAI TONY CHAK LEUNG v. KE JUNXIANG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2651/2018

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the advance was an investment agreement with a guaranteed minimum profit as evidenced by contemporaneous WeChat messages, the drafted and signed Declaration & Undertaking and parties' conduct; the D&U was not a sham; the defendant's loan defence was inherently improbable and not credible; accordingly the defendant breached the investment agreement and is liable to pay the outstanding sum of HK$33,880,074 plus interest and costs.
3 Jun 2021

CHENG JUAN v. DENG JUNJIE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1606
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1398/2018

On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the claimant's evidence and the contemporaneous documentary and WeChat evidence that Deng, at a meeting in late October 2017, orally promised to indemnify Cheng for any shortfall below HK$30,000,000; therefore Deng was liable to pay the shortfall of HK$5,241,286 and interest and costs followed accordingly.
22 Dec 2017

PHILLIP SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. 3i CAPITAL GROUP CORP AND ANOTHER

Citation

PHILLIP SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. 3i CAPITAL GROUP CORP AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2014

No express contractual term arose from Section H; there was no credible evidence of any communicated "real demand" or of any practice giving rise to the alleged implied terms; the express Securities Client Agreement bound the defendants and permitted the plaintiff to treat non‑payment as default and to sell shares and recover the shortfall; therefore plaintiff's claim for outstanding sums with interest succeeds and defendants' defences and counterclaim fail.
20 Sept 2016

HIGH POWER FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD v. MSY ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

HIGH POWER FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD v. MSY ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2737/2015

On the balance of probabilities High Power proved non-payment under the Rental Agreement supported by invoices and contemporaneous documents; MSY did not appear to challenge the evidence, therefore judgment is entered for High Power for the outstanding sum with interest and costs.
4 May 2016

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD v. LEONG FONG CHENG

Citation

AXA CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD v. LEONG FONG CHENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1516/2013

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the New MTB was advanced, rejected the defendant's allegation of any waiver or collateral agreement because it was inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and recordings, and held that AXA validly terminated both the agent and manager contracts under their express terms; therefore the defendant was liable to repay 100% of the New Career Bonus (HK$997,500.00) and New Monthly Transition Bonus (HK$208,366.64) with contractual interest and to pay plaintiff's costs; the claim for Negative Payments was dismissed for lack of proved underlying tran…
24 Feb 2014

LAL IMP. EXP. S. A. v. UTANIKO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

LAL IMP. EXP. S. A. v. UTANIKO (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1907/2010

Court found on balance that Gary acted as agent with actual authority for the defendant and Lal acted for the plaintiff; a binding oral contract existed between plaintiff and defendant for the goods; defendant accepted payment and failed to deliver, and had been unjustly enriched; defendant liable to repay US$65,040 plus interest and costs.