Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deposit

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2025

MG CHARTER LTD v. BEIJING CAISSA INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICE CO, LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1129
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2/2023

The Contract (Customer Contract, Reservation Forms and Supplemental Agreement) was valid and binding on execution; the deposit provisions are conditions precedent to performance or promissory conditions on the defendant (not conditions preventing formation); accordingly the defendant was obliged to pay the specified deposits and weekly payments and breached those payment obligations; remedies (including quantification of damages and issues of waiver) are remitted to the trial judge for determination.
29 Sept 2025

WANG BOHENG v. YU KAFU

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA193/2025

The court found on the evidence that the deposit was validly paid by way of set-off and acknowledged by the defendant in the SPA and Deed of Set-Off; the defendant’s explanations were implausible and did not present a credible triable defence to the claim, so summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff on the claim without a stay; however triable issues existed on the validity of the loan instruments so the plaintiff was granted unconditional leave to defend the counterclaim.
7 May 2025

TRILLION STAR (ASIA) LTD v. GAIN FORTUNE CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 763
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4722/2023

The defendant failed to show a reasonably arguable appeal because the undertaking was a separate enforceable obligation supported by consideration, it did not necessarily lapse or become subsumed by the subsequent provisional agreement absent clear wording, and no triable defence was established; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
14 Aug 2023

TOP UNION CORPORATION LTD v. BRAND’S INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1037
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5748/2018

Defendant was not induced by clause 9 and did not prove misrepresentation or repudiatory breach by landlord; no enforceable Early Departure Agreement existed; defendant repudiated the PTA by failing to pay rent and abandoning possession (leaving keys) and thereby landlord validly accepted repudiation; damages assessed at rent for remaining three months ($75,000) less deposit refund ($50,000) plus removal costs (safe and removal/demolition adjusted) produced a net judgment for plaintiff of $55,000; chattels were abandoned so landlord entitled to removal costs; costs order nisi for plaintiff re…
28 May 2021

ATELIER ENGINEERING LTD v. HONG KONG INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3049/2016

The Court held the Plaintiff had not agreed or waived the balance of the deposit and was entitled to judgment for HK$188,425 with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim was insufficiently pleaded and failed except for nominal damages of HK$1,000 because the Plaintiff repudiated by refusing delivery and delivering some goods to Rosy Acme and the Defendant had validly accepted repudiation; agency and frustration arguments failed; costs were apportioned with the Defendant to pay 50% of the Plaintiff's costs (with an order nisi and further directions).
30 Apr 2018

SHINY BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. IBO JEWELRY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 912
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA693/2016

Plaintiff was entitled to recover unpaid sums due on 13 February 2015 and damages for the unexpired term subject to mitigation; the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate; the deposit held as security free of interest did not attract contractual interest; therefore judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the specified sums, interest as ordered and costs on a nisi basis.
24 Nov 2017

CHINA MONEY ASIA LTD v. YIP WAI

Citation

CHINA MONEY ASIA LTD v. YIP WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA131/2014

The application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed because the defendant failed to establish any meritorious defence with a real prospect of success: the June cheque defence lacked credible documentary support, set-off against the deposit was contractually excluded, and vacant possession was not delivered in February 2014.
30 Aug 2017

CHINA TRAVEL HIP KEE GODOWN HONG KONG LTD v. ASIARAY ADVERTISING MEDIA LTD

Citation

CHINA TRAVEL HIP KEE GODOWN HONG KONG LTD v. ASIARAY ADVERTISING MEDIA LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1950/2016

The Court held that factual disputes concerning the extent of obstruction, causation and commercial impact could not be resolved summarily on affidavit evidence; therefore the Defendant's applications for striking out and summary judgment failed because triable issues exist; because the Plaintiff's pleaded claim as framed exceeded the District Court monetary limit and there was no interlocutory basis to conclude abuse, the action must be transferred to the Court of First Instance under s.41(1) DCO.
15 Nov 2016

CHEUNG LOK PUN BENEDICT v. HAIDER ALI

Citation

CHEUNG LOK PUN BENEDICT v. HAIDER ALI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2834/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of law was properly raised, the Member's factual finding that the respondent was the tenant was not shown to be legally erroneous, the respondent produced no evidence to substantiate his claim that ISS was the tenant or his claimed sum of $18,200, and therefore the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the court also ordered that the determination not be reconsidered at an oral inter partes hearing.
7 Sept 2016

FONG CHUNG v. WU CHIK CHIN

Citation

FONG CHUNG v. WU CHIK CHIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP21/2016

The court treated the signed agreement together with payment of a deposit and the defendant's subsequent conduct (seeking to reduce the price below the agreed range, ceasing payment of rent and communications) as establishing a valid sale and purchase contract and conduct amounting to repudiation by the defendant, permitting the court to decide the matter in his absence and to grant the plaintiff relief arising from the breach.