Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Gift versus loan

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

LAU PING LAM v. CHOI SAU POON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1931
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3183/2022

On the totality of the evidence the court found the October 2019 transfer was $2,000,000 and was a gift (not a loan); the Property was intended as a gift to Choi (no beneficial interest in Lau); Choi’s unjust enrichment counterclaim for $1,000,000 failed because Lau was the real beneficial party to the loan and the defendants were not enriched at Choi’s expense; allegations of duress and estoppel were rejected.
11 Apr 2025

IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC v. CHAN CHI HUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA75/2018

The court allowed the late filing of the new witness statement and supplemental documents because the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the material was relevant to central issues and admitting it would assist the just resolution of the dispute while allowing the plaintiff adequate time to respond; because the defendant sought an indulgence, the defendant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed with specified filing timelines.
17 Apr 2024

WONG CHAU PAN v. POON CHUK YING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 555
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3119/2020

Bank records and contemporaneous messages established all eight transfers were made; messages and subsequent admissions, pattern of dealings, and surrounding circumstances established the transfers were loans with intention to create legal relations; defendant produced no evidence to rebut; plaintiff entitled to full repayment of HK$103,000 plus interest and costs.
9 Sept 2022

SHUM WING LOK v. SHUM MAN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA931/2017

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the funds used to purchase the HKD 3,000,000 cashier's order derived from sale proceeds of shares beneficially owned by the deceased father, not the plaintiff; contemporaneous records and conduct supported father's beneficial ownership and intention to gift; plaintiff's evidence was inherently implausible and unreliable; therefore the cashier's order was a gift from father to defendant and the plaintiff's claim for repayment fails.
14 Mar 2018

CLC v. SKW

Citation

[2018] HKCA 143
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV256/2015

The judge's factual finding that the HK$400,000 was a family 'soft loan' or subsidy (not a legally enforceable loan subsequently forgiven) was open on the evidence; there was no evidence of any change of intention or of forgiveness intended to defeat the wife's ancillary relief claim. Therefore the wife failed to discharge the burden of proving the requisite intention under s17 and the appeal is dismissed.
4 Jun 2012

CWL v. LWK

Citation

CWL v. LWK
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1100/2010

Applying section 7 and the LKW v DD framework the court identified and quantified assets at trial date, made factual findings on disputed titles and intentions: (1) the $680,000 from Husband's parents was a gift (not deductible) based on estate administration records and surrounding conduct; (2) the 1.2M Kowloon City sale proceeds belonged to the father (despite executed DFA/DA) because of the siblings' and father's contemporaneous intention and the subsequent transfer of 1,120,000 to family; (3) Husband failed to prove any 50:50 beneficial interest of his father in the HSBC investment accoun…
13 Sept 2010

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN

Citation

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1577/2007

On the balance of probabilities the court found that the $900,000 pension was validly gifted by the deceased sister (Siu Fung) to the plaintiff (Chan Siu Lin) by transfer into the joint account coupled with declarations and conduct evidencing intention; therefore the $200,000 paid on 15 August 2003 was made from funds belonging to the plaintiff and, on the plaintiff's credible evidence, was a loan to the defendant repayable on demand. The defendant failed to prove the contrary (that the payment was a gift by the deceased).
7 Jun 2002

LIN SU CHUN, BARBARA v. CHRISTIAAN GEORGIO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIN SU CHUN, BARBARA v. CHRISTIAAN GEORGIO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17229/1999

The court found that the bulk of the remittances totalling HK$2,503,400.00 were not intended as outright gifts but as investments in the salon; the 1st defendant failed to prove they were gifts and repudiated the unwritten agreement, entitling the plaintiff to restitution; two later smaller payments were found to be gifts; judgment entered for the plaintiff in the stated amounts with interest and costs.
21 Jun 2001

KING YUEN VUNG GEORGE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH YING WENDY

Citation

KING YUEN VUNG GEORGE AND ANOTHER v. CHAN WAH YING WENDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10410/1995

On the facts the court finds a partnership existed between Mr King and the defendant for investing in property (75%/25%), the HK$16,150,000 payments were contributions to partnership capital (not gifts), the partnership was not terminated on 10 July 1995 and instead dissolved on Mr King’s death 20 December 1995, and the appropriate relief is a declaration of dissolution, appointment of a receiver and detailed accounts and inquiries; costs to plaintiffs.
11 Feb 2000

CHAN SIU KAM v. CHAN SHUK HANG CHRISTINE

Citation

CHAN SIU KAM v. CHAN SHUK HANG CHRISTINE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2815/1997

On the facts the court found no loan agreement or advances to the defendant as claimed: payments were either part of a share purchase or ex gratia gifts (AUD 4,000), the plaintiff's and Miss Ho's accounts were disbelieved, therefore both claim and counterclaim fail and costs are payable to the defendant on an indemnity basis, nisi.