Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Director's loan

  • 15 May 2026

    CHOW LUEN FAT v. WONG YAT KONG

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 735
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6688/2020

    On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's account that the loan was made by the plaintiff in his personal capacity and that Tak Lee advanced the funds at the plaintiff's direction to reduce a director's loan; the defendant's signature on the bilingual Loan Confirmation corroborated the defendant's personal liability for the outstanding $500,000; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $500,000 with interest and costs as ordered.

  • 25 May 2022

    CHOW LUEN FATv. WONG YAT KONG

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 453
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6688/2020

    Summary judgment was set aside because there were real and material triable issues of fact as to who advanced the HK$1.5m (the plaintiff personally or the Company), compounded by lack of documentary proof of the alleged director's loan and board authorisation; however the defence was not wholly convincing, so conditional leave to defend was granted only upon payment into court of HK$500,000 within 42 days, failing which the plaintiff may enter judgment with interest and costs.

  • 24 Apr 2018

    YU SHEUNG CHI JANET v. HUI TSANG YIK PHILIP AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 806
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA332/2015

    On the balance of probabilities the contemporaneous documentary evidence (cheques, bank transfers, company financial statements, loan documents and personal guarantees), the company accounts showing substantial director's loans from the 1st defendant, and the defendant's provision of mortgage payments and guarantees rebut the plaintiff's asserted presumption of resulting trust and do not support an inference of a common intention constructive trust; accordingly the 1st defendant is both legal and beneficial owner of the PUD share and PUD is legal and beneficial owner of the Property; mesne pr…

  • 21 Sept 2017

    RE KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD

    Citation
    RE KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW456/2016

    The petition was struck out because the Company demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds over the alleged HK$3,000,000 loan — Sum A is more properly characterized as capital contribution, half of Sum B was repaid by Ho, and the SPA and partial performance/part payment by the purchaser subsumed the remaining alleged shareholder loans — thus the petitioner lacked locus and the petition amounted to an abuse of process.

  • 21 Sept 2017

    KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD v. TSANG WOON MING

    Citation
    KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD v. TSANG WOON MING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP95/2017

    The petition was struck out as an abuse of process because the Company established a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the existence and quantum of the alleged director's loan: Sum A was more consistent with an agreed capital contribution, half of Sum B was reimbursed by Ho and therefore not Tsang's loan, and the SPA and part performance/part payment by the purchaser provided a viable defence (accord and satisfaction); Tsang's documentary and witness evidence was insufficient to displace the Company's contemporaneous documentary evidence.

  • 21 Sept 2017

    KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD v. TSANG WOON MING

    Citation
    KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD v. TSANG WOON MING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3573/2016

    The Petition was struck out because the Company demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds over the alleged HK$3,000,000 loan (Sum A characterised as capital contribution, half of Sum B shown to be Ho's loan and reimbursed to Tsang, and the SPA/subsequent part performance meant shareholders' loans were subsumed), so the petitioner lacked locus to present the petition and the petition constituted an abuse of process; consequentially NM1 and NM2 were dismissed and specific costs orders were made.

  • 14 Aug 2014

    DE CORO LTD ( IN LIQUIDATION) v. LUCA RICCI

    Citation
    DE CORO LTD ( IN LIQUIDATION) v. LUCA RICCI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA594/2010

    Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the six payments reduced the loan or were bona fide injections for the company's use; defendant also failed to prove the existence/authenticity of the Royalty Agreement and two invoices. The court therefore rejected the defendant's defences, drew adverse inferences from his non-attendance, released the plaintiff from any deemed admissions in respect of the disputed documents and entered judgment for the plaintiff with costs.

  • 16 Apr 2012

    DIE UKW HONG KONG LTD v. FAN KAM HON

    Citation
    DIE UKW HONG KONG LTD v. FAN KAM HON
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2524/2011

    The defendant established arguable defences and raised multiple triable issues — notably uncertainty whether director's remuneration was paid or set off, misallocation of a $113,111.25 dividend, and lack of direct evidence from the controlling director — such that summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend must be granted.

  • 26 Feb 2010

    RALF BORCHERT v. DRMYO LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    RALF BORCHERT v. DRMYO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2234/2007

    The plaintiff's evidence was not credible and the commercial context (expectation of outside investor funding, absence of signed guarantee) established that Dr Chin did not personally promise to fund the company or guarantee salary; therefore no collateral contract or actionable misrepresentation existed; conversely the evidence established Dr Chin's ownership of the computer and entitlement to its return.

  • 25 May 2006

    GENERAL EASE LTD v. TONG WEI

    Citation
    GENERAL EASE LTD v. TONG WEI
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ192/2002

    On the balance of probabilities the court found that the defendant borrowed $295,880.97, incurred $140,543.46 interest, and misappropriated $404,975.72; the court awarded judgment for the total sum of $841,400.18 with interest (at half judgment rate from the date of writ to date of judgment and full judgment rate thereafter), refused a declaration of trust over 200,000 shares because the shares were given as security/lien rather than transferred in trust, and held the plaintiff entitled to seek a charging order against the shares and dividends.