Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable lien

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

ZHANG YUYAN v. TO NGAN HO

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1298/2024

Summary judgment was refused because there are serious and bona fide factual disputes as to the existence of a common intention constructive trust; the Defendant, as trustee, is entitled in principle to an indemnity under equitable principles and statute which may cover future contingent liabilities (including potential tax liabilities and losses from loss of public housing) and which can be secured by an equitable lien; these issues cannot be resolved summarily and must proceed to trial.
10 Feb 2026

TRILLION JOYFUL LTD v. SUNNIX INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 850
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1149/2022

The Vendor failed to show a good title before completion because the Rider only covered governmental enforcement risk and did not address the separate real risks arising from the Rear/Side Shop being formed from an external wall (common part) and possible breaches of Clause 8 of the DMC; the Vendor also failed to produce the original/certified copy of the Cockloft tenancy; those failures meant a real risk remained and the Vendor breached the PSPA repudiatorily, entitling the Purchaser to terminate, return of deposits, damages, equitable remedies and costs.
12 Dec 2025

CAI DEYAN AND ANOTHER v. LAM TING HON

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1441/2024

Defendant had no arguable defence to purchasers' claim that his refusal to discharge the Third Mortgage and failure to remove it before completion posed a real risk of defeating purchasers' title; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Master's conditional leave to defend set aside, judgment entered for plaintiffs for return of deposits (HK$2,020,000) and liquidated damages (HK$2,020,000), with interest and costs.
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.
10 Jul 2025

李林洧對尹小芸

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1099
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6897/2019

The extension application was unnecessary and void because the 14-day period commenced the day after the interim costs order and expired on the day the defendant filed the extension; alternatively, even if the court considered an extension, the defendant offered no reasonable explanation, had acted delayingly and failed to serve the application, and granting an extension would prejudice the plaintiff — accordingly the extension application is revoked and an interim costs order is made against the defendant.
8 Apr 2025

李林洧對尹小芸

Citation

[2025] HKDC 532
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6897/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's proposed grounds were irrelevant to the judge's reasons, contradicted by prior binding orders, internally inconsistent and unsupported by evidence, and thus lacked a reasonable prospect of success; further, the defendant's persistent failure to comply with court directions justified determination on the papers.
7 Mar 2025

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 236
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV296/2023

The Court dismissed the defendants' appeal: the judge below was wrong to treat any suggestion that beneficial title had re-vested in the plaintiff as a basis for clause 2(d) summary judgment, but on construction clause 2(e)(iii) embraces third-party buyouts including voluntary agreed sales (not limited to tag-along/drag-along situations) and the evidence warranted inferring completion had occurred by the Notice date; there was no arguable defence to the claim under clause 2(e)(iii) and summary judgment for the plaintiff for US$750,000 was therefore upheld.
14 Jun 2024

CHAO CHIUNG YO, the executor of the Estate of Madam LEUNG HING SHAN, deceased v. SAM YU LIK ERIC

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP12/2023

The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer material requisitions (notably the Vendor lacked effective power to sell the parking space absent rectification of the will/probate by completion date and had not produced a certified carpark layout plan); that failure amounted to repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 was not a penalty and the Purchaser was entitled to liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000; the Purchaser is entitled to indemnity for any estate agent commission if it becomes payable; equitable lien is subsumed by the security paid…
14 Jun 2024

SAM YU LIK ERIC v. CHAO CHIUNG YO (趙祟岳), the sole executor of the estate of LEUNG HING SHAN (梁慶珊),deceased

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP15/2023

The Vendor failed to show good title and did not satisfactorily answer requisitions (in particular the Vendor's lack of clear power to sell the parking space under the Will), thereby committing a repudiatory breach which the Purchaser validly accepted; clause 7 providing liquidated damages of HKD 2,100,000 was not a penalty and is enforceable; the Purchaser is entitled to liquidated damages, interest and an indemnity in respect of any estate agent commission payable; equitable lien need not be declared because security had been paid into court.
12 Mar 2024

HG PROPERTY INVESTMENT HK LTD v. CHENG MEI HOLDINGS LTD (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1469/2022

The proposed amendments and joinder were refused because the Amended Statement of Claim (§§63A-63B) failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under s60 CPO: the pleaded undervalue (comparison with the HG SPA) was an insufficient and legally inadequate basis to infer an intent to defraud given the two-month interval, stamp duty, market/interest rate movements, the commercial context (sale by receivers to satisfy secured creditors), the retention of 5% was commercially explicable, and there was no particularised plea that Goldstone had notice or conspired; accordingly the S60 claim is bou…