Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud exception

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2025

SUEN WAI MO v. LAM HONG KI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA133/2020

The court held that the fraud exception was engaged given interconnected claims and allegations of dishonesty spanning the writ, so it had no jurisdiction to grant summary judgment (Order 14) in respect of the Panven claim; further, even absent the jurisdictional bar the materials disclosed triable issues so summary judgment would have been refused. The application for interim receivership was dismissed because the applicant failed to show a real risk of dissipation or that receivership was proportionate; the late additional affirmation evidence was refused and the expungement application was…
31 Jan 2022

WONG WAI KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 374
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1222/2020

The court dismissed all LPP claims over the Disputed Materials except items 53 and 54 (two pages of the RKSA email) because the majority of documents were public/company search documents, inter partes correspondence, or materials compiled by the plaintiff (own documents) and therefore not privileged; the Lyell v Kennedy exception does not extend to selections made from a party's own documents and disclosure of the remaining materials would not betray legal advice; accordingly the Commissioner may inspect and use the Disputed Materials (other than items 53 and 54) and the plaintiff must pay co…
16 Apr 2021

TANG YUAN YI v. TOKYO INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 944
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2078/2018

The Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff on USD160,000 because the plaintiff established entitlement to restitution for payments made under a mistake, the defendant failed to raise any credible or triable defence (agency, repayment or change of position lacked probative evidence), and the fraud exception did not apply as no allegation of fraud or dishonesty was made against the defendant and the unjust enrichment claim could be maintained without proving fraud.
11 Mar 2021

P CO AND ANOTHER v. R LLC AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT21/2021

Absent fraud or exceptional circumstances plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficiently strong/clear case to restrain payment under an unconditional on‑demand bank guarantee; commercial certainty of guarantees outweighs plaintiffs' risk of recovery so injunction refused and summons dismissed.
11 Jan 2021

CHAN SIN YEE v. CHAN SAU SHAN

Citation

[2021] HKDC 31
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3271/2019

The court held the fraud exception was not engaged and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff provided valuable consideration by entering the Last Agreement and accepting the cheque as repayment of the principal; under BOEO s30(1) consideration is prima facie presumed and the undisputed facts established that the cheque was delivered for that purpose, so the defendant's total failure of consideration and conditional delivery defences failed and BOEO ss26/26A were inapplicable.
25 Sept 2020

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds had a reasonable prospect of success and, even if any did, the judge would in any event have refused leave in the exercise of his discretion given serious allegations of dishonesty, significant factual disputes unsuitable for resolution on affidavit, and case management and proportionality considerations; accordingly summary judgment and interim payment were correctly refused.
4 Sept 2020

R STAHL INC (a company incorporated in the United States of America) v. AJ DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 747
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/2020

Where an interlocutory refusal to admit affidavit evidence was made in the course of the hearing that produced a final judgment, and the respondent has appealed that final judgment as of right, no separate leave to appeal is required in respect of the interlocutory refusal because the appeal opens the whole judgment including evidential rulings.
23 Jul 2020

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1643
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

The fraud exception applies (or at minimum there are allegations of dishonesty that fall within its scope) and there exist substantial, disputed factual issues central to the defence of set-off — including contested origins and validity of the alleged debts and disputed supposed admissions — such that summary judgment under Order 14 is inappropriate and an interim payment should not be ordered; accordingly both summonses are dismissed.
23 Jul 2020

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1643
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The summonses were dismissed because the court found the fraud exception engaged and substantial disputed facts and issues of dishonesty (the alleged Scheme and authenticity/character of the Debts) that could not be resolved on affidavit; the plaintiff was seeking judgment on factual assumptions it simultaneously contested and there were multiple complex triable issues (including a pending appeal affecting potential additional set-off) making summary disposal and interim payment inappropriate.
17 Jul 2020

CRP/PE MUNROE STREET OWNER, LLC v. JUNWEI CONSULTING TRADE CO., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 566
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4700/2019

There was no bona fide triable issue: the USD 150,560 was satisfactorily traceable to the 2nd defendant despite a date discrepancy (which could be explained by normal banking delays and judicial notice); the plaintiff's pleadings sufficed against a second‑layer recipient who disavowed involvement in the original transfer; no allegation of fraud was made against the 2nd defendant and no evidence was produced to rebut tracing, therefore the 2nd defendant had no defence and summary judgment was appropriate.