Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Excessive interest

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2021

PARKLANE MORTGAGE SERVICES LTD v. LI HO JACOB

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 537
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1133/2019

The court allowed the appeal to be lodged out of time but dismissed the appeal on the merits; granted the defendant conditional leave to defend provided he pays HK$4,782,842 into court within 28 days, failing which the plaintiff may enter final judgment for the pleaded claim; ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal on a summary assessed basis and summarily assessed those costs at HK$88,100. The court found the defendant's defences raised arguable issues requiring trial but not sufficiently strong to displace the conditional payment requirement.
10 Jun 2020

KEY STEP VENTURES LTD v. FUGUINIAO GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2327/2017

The statutory term "effective rate of interest" in ss 24 and 25 is the pre-default contractual annual rate (here 15%), thus ss 24 and 25 do not apply to the 59% default interest; in any event the default rate of 59% does not exceed the 60% statutory ceiling and, on the evidence, the transaction is not extortionate. Judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.
24 Jan 2019

E-WAY (HONG KONG) PROPERTY CREDIT LTD v. FUNG WING TIM

Citation

[2019] HKDC 39
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3181/2016

On the proved facts the court drew the inference that the lender was acting in collusion with the intermediary (Hong Wang) when HK$50,000 service fee and HK$200,000 stakeholder money were received; accordingly s27(4) allowed set-off of HK$250,000 against the HK$343,000 lent, and because the lender failed to provide the required memorandum under s18 within 7 days the remaining HK$93,000 of the loan was unenforceable; the plaintiff's claims were therefore dismissed and costs ordered.
14 Oct 2016

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU WAI MAN

Citation

FU TAT CREDIT LTD v. LAU WAI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1756/2012

Leave to defend must be granted and default judgments set aside where defendants demonstrate arguable defences (undue influence, sham/illegality) and the factual matrix raises real issues requiring forensic document discovery and trial, especially where the plaintiff is closely linked to related companies and bears the burden to prove licensing and absence of illegality.
2 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. WAN CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/1999

Given the judge's findings that the applicant had a very significant role in a more widespread and organised loansharking operation charging over 1000% p.a., with records and links to accomplices, prior offending and no remorse, the Court of Appeal held the aggregate sentence of 3 years was not manifestly excessive and the application to appeal sentence was dismissed.
3 Feb 1998

HKSAR v. LO SHING BOU

Citation

HKSAR v. LO SHING BOU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC660/1997

The conviction was affirmed because the trial judge permissibly accepted PW1's testimony and the admitted facts (bank payments, effective interest rate and totals) provided strong corroboration; contradictions in PW2 did not create reasonable doubt sufficient to overturn the conviction.
7 Apr 1993

THE QUEEN v. SIU YUK SHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SIU YUK SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA172/1993

The Court held the aggregate sentence of 3 months imprisonment and a fine was not wrong in principle but adjusted the exercise of sentencing discretion by suspending the imprisonment for two years and increasing the fine on the first charge to HKD 30,000 to reflect deterrence and the appellant's financial means; the magistrate's overall approach was acceptable and required modification rather than reversal.
28 Apr 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SEK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SEK HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1795/1988

The magistrate erred by effectively applying a civil standard—balancing competing narratives of prosecution and defence—instead of determining whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt on its own; that misdirection rendered the conviction unsafe and warranted quashing.
4 Jun 1985

THE QUEEN v. AU HON KIT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. AU HON KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA431/1985

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the prosecution evidence contained significant and material inconsistencies, contradictions and identification uncertainties that made the conviction unsafe despite the usual deference to a trial judge's credibility findings.
18 Mar 1983

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM KOK-HUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAM KOK-HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR9/1982

Gross breaches of s24 (very high interest rates) justify immediate custodial sentences; the magistrate gave excessive weight to mitigating factors and incorrectly suspended sentences; suspended sentences were set aside and replaced with immediate consecutive terms totalling 15 months, with costs to remain.