Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex turpi causa

Legal area

Court

26 Jan 2026

LIN RUIQING as the Administratrix of the estate of CHEUNG HIN FAI, deceased v. YUNG RUN YEW DANIEL (formerly known as YUNG DING LEUNG DANIEL)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI988/2017

On the balance of probabilities the punch was an initiative not a reasonable act of self-defence; volenti, ex turpi and contributory negligence defences fail; defendant liable for battery and negligence; plaintiff proved dependency and other heads of loss; damages assessed at HK$3,778,528 with interest and costs (nisi).
14 Aug 2024

TAI MEI KEI MAGGIE trading as GREAT TIME COMPANY v. STYLE TRAVEL COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1307
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1152/2021

On the evidence the defendant's account of the contractual relationship and accounting procedures was accepted: there was no Oral Agreement permitting the plaintiff to issue final invoices, the final invoices were issued without the defendant's authorisation and were false, therefore the alleged top-up profits and airline refund credit notes did not belong to the plaintiff; the plaintiff was entitled only to the admitted commission and return of security funds; the defendant was entitled to recover reasonable legal expenses incurred dealing with the customers as a consequence of the plaintiff…
30 Oct 2020

RAN MAOXIU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2410/2019

Leave to intervene was granted because the Actions 'concern' matters provided for in the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrated a functional interest and that intervention was in the public interest, the Financial Secretary had been consulted, and there were reasonable grounds to fear dissipation or collusive litigation warranting intervention and a stay pending investigation.
30 Oct 2020

LIANG YUYU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2411/2019

Intervention under s.385 SFO was permitted because the dishonest cheque actions concerned matters within the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrably had an interest by virtue of its functions, consultation with the Financial Secretary occurred, intervention was in the public interest to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds and to guard against collusive or inadequately defended litigation, and the court exercised its discretion to allow intervention and order a stay pending investigation.
27 Dec 2018

K CASH LTD v. SO WANG FUNG BY SO WANG MING HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1588
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5085/2014

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was mentally incapacitated and that the plaintiff, through its handling staff, knew of the incapacity and was in collusion with intermediaries/third parties to deceive the defendant into obtaining the loan; therefore the Agreement was illegal and unenforceable and the plaintiff could not recover in restitution because the defendant did not retain any benefit and public policy precluded recovery; accordingly plaintiff's claims dismissed and costs ordered for defendant.
8 Sept 2017

N v. W

Citation

N v. W
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5026/2015

The court granted the transfer of the s17 application to the Court of First Instance because the matter raised substantial points of law (notably ex turpi causa in light of Patel v Mirza), involved allegations of fraud and other civil/criminal ramifications, potentially required expert evidence, and concerned a significant quantum (circa US$18 million); accordingly the High Court is a more appropriate forum. Costs were ordered to follow the event on a party and party basis, taxed if not agreed.
3 Nov 2016

LEUNG YAU YEE 對 TANG CHI TAK

Citation

LEUNG YAU YEE 對 TANG CHI TAK
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1701/2014

The court finds on the balance of probabilities that the defendant retrieved a baseball bat, pursued the plaintiff and struck him causing the left fifth metacarpal fracture and back contusion; the pleas of self-defence and defence of others fail because the force used was disproportionate and not necessary; contributory negligence was not pleaded; defendant liable in trespass to person and must pay HK$201,200 plus interest and costs.
21 Jul 2015

ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZARIR KHALID v. GURUNG DURGA BAHADUR AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2562/2011

The 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success and provided an unsatisfactory, implausible explanation for the defaults; coupled with prolonged delay, deliberate inaction until enforcement/winding-up threatened, and resultant prejudice to the plaintiff and the public policy of finality, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to set aside the interlocutory and final default judgments and dismissed the 2nd defendant's applications with costs.
18 Nov 2014

FONG YU SUM v. SAE IA ANGKHANA AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONG YU SUM v. SAE IA ANGKHANA AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2010/2012

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed defences arise from existing pleaded facts, do not introduce new factual allegations, and no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff was shown; a supplemental joint orthopaedic report was permitted because the current reports did not address whether the injuries could result from the accidental fall alleged by defendants and the trial judge requires expert assistance on that specific causation issue.
26 Oct 2010

WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD

Citation

WOON LEE CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2010

The amendment adding an ex turpi causa ground was refused because it amounted to an application to extend time without any explanation or exceptional circumstances; the proposed illegality argument was unpleaded, irrelevant to the contract dispute and legally hopeless under the modern test in Stone & Rolls; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the arbitrator's construction of the contract was not shown to be obviously wrong.