Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴何卓為及另七人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5098
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC186/2022

Applying s.102 and the balance of probabilities standard, the court found sufficient evidential nexus between specified cash and electronic devices and the commission or facilitation of the offences to order forfeiture under s.102(1)(c)/(2)(b) for cash used in the offences and destruction under s.102(1)(a) for electronic devices and related items, but ordered preservation and return of work/memory materials on USB prior to destruction; items shown to be only identity aids or not specially related were returned rather than forfeited.
8 Oct 2025

LIP FAI HOI v. SOUTHEAST FOODS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 58
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE1007/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the respondent’s case lacked a reasonable prospect of success given serial and last‑minute defaults, the tenancy clause excluding landlord liability, and binding authority that rent covenants are independent and s.21F(1A) limits relief for repeat defaulters; accordingly the writ of possession was not set aside.
17 Sept 2025

KWOK WING KIT 對 JULY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 52
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE998/2025

The tribunal found the lease unambiguously allocated responsibility for repairs to the tenant, evidence (including statutory nuisance notice and communications) established a breach and prior arrears meant the tenant was not entitled to a second s.21F relief; the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reasons, therefore leave to appeal was refused and the possession order and monetary orders were upheld; no stay was granted.
4 Aug 2025

LINK PROPERTIES LTD v. 1968 LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2024

The defendant failed to establish any credible triable issues: the Tenancy Agreement expressly prohibited external alterations and signage without written approval and contained an entire agreement clause excluding alleged licence representations; the defendant did not demonstrate it operated a Shanghainese specialty restaurant before the action commenced; the defendant relied on unpleaded or belated defences which cannot defeat an Order 14 application; accordingly the Master's summary judgment was upheld and the stay refused.
27 Jun 2025

OCEAN ELDERLY SERVICE LTD v. UNITED WEALTH GLOBAL (HK) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2676
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2023

There were serious triable issues whether the lessor had delivered vacant possession and whether the lease had commenced (including whether installation of windows was a precondition and whether 14 days' written notice was required); because the defendant did not show no real prospect of the plaintiff's defences, summary judgment and interim payment were inappropriate; unconditional leave to defend was granted and the summons dismissed with no interim payment ordered.
3 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃振強

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC256/2023

The court, exercising its statutory power under s.102 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, approved the parties' agreed categorisation and disposal of the exhibits and ordered disposal in accordance with the specified schedules while respecting freezing notices that preclude disposition.
3 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴蘇緯軒及另三人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC165/2022

The court approved the prosecution's revised application under s102 and ordered the disposal and custody of exhibits as categorised in the schedule: specified items forfeited to the Crown, specified items returned to identified owners, specified items retained in court custody, specified items returned to or retained by police, and specified items not to be dealt with because of freezing notices.
8 Aug 2024

DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION v. HOI YUEN GINSENG CO

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1313
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1075/2024

A prima facie case for forfeiture was established because the seized Panax quinquefolius was imported without the required CITES documentation; the defendant did not contest forfeiture nor adduce evidence to justify return, therefore the court properly exercised its discretion under s 42(2)(b) to order forfeiture; costs were refused as a fair exercise of discretion given the defendant's non‑contest.
28 Feb 2024

NICE EXCEL LTD v. CLUB PRIMO (LKF) LTD, formerly known as PRIMO GROUP LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 22
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE7/2024

The review was dismissed because the Respondent failed to plead or produce evidence of the alleged oral agreement before judgment or the relief expiration date; a partial payment does not constitute consideration to extend time for payment; under authorities the tenant cannot insist on applying the deposit to outstanding arrears in these proceedings; rule 14(1A)(a) supports determination at first hearing.
17 Jan 2024

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE v. 深圳華達隆珠寶有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 63
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3123/2023

Because the gold bullions were involved in an offence and the Respondent failed to present evidence or instructions to rebut forfeiture, the court was satisfied the statutory test for forfeiture under ss.27-28 was met and ordered forfeiture and payment of costs to the Applicant.