Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Gifts

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2026

WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1006
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2021

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the order made absolute because the Estate succeeded in the vast bulk of its claims, the unsuccessful claims did not lead to any increase in costs, and the defendants' conduct and materially changing defences justified no reduction in the costs order.
29 Dec 2025

WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2021

Court found on the evidence that the Deceased was the beneficial owner of 34B and used its net proceeds towards half the Paragon down payment; the common intention at acquisition was 50:50, so the Estate holds 50% beneficial interest in Paragon; most joint account balances derived from the Deceased and were held on resulting trust (with a specific gift of HKD 750,000 found to the 1st defendant and the HKD 1,022,189 transfer to be repaid); transfers required to be accounted for and mesne profits awarded for the period of ouster.
11 Nov 2025

LAM KIT LAN CYNTHIA AND LAM CHI WAI ADRIAN appointed by Order dated 12th April 2021 to represent the estate of Lam Hon Keung Keith, since deceased v. ELEGANT FUND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2427/2015

On the balance of the evidence the Court found the transfers and allotments were intended as inter vivos gifts, not trusts; the deceased’s untested statements and late assertions were insufficient to rebut contemporaneous documentary evidence and the deceased’s sworn position in divorce proceedings; claimant’s trust claims dismissed.
2 May 2025

JONG YAT KIT, as Sole Administrator of the Estate of LI CHUNG, deceased v. LI MUN HOK STEVEN also known as LEE MUN HOK and LEE MUN HOK STEVEN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1764
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1767/2017

On the balance of probabilities the 17 withdrawals were authorised by the deceased; specific large transfers on 7 June 2006 and 31 October 2006 were established as gifts to the defendant and his wife; the defendant was a fiduciary of limited scope (assistant/authorised signatory) not a trustee holding legal title to HSB funds, so he was not subject to full trustee accounting obligations; the presumption of advancement applies to the remaining withdrawals paid to the son and those sums are treated as gifts; consequently the Administrator's claim for recovery is dismissed.
6 Dec 2024

YIU SAU LIN v. WONG TANG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3519
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2023

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was within the jurisdiction during the relevant period and had knowledge of the Writ and Statement of Claim, rendering service valid and the Default Judgment regular; the court exercised its discretion to set aside the Default Judgment only upon the condition that the defendant pays the full claimed sum into court by a specified deadline, otherwise the Default Judgment stands, and ordered directions for a speedy trial and mediation.
30 Aug 2022

ZSL v. TMF AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKFC 179
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5104/2019

The court accepted the 1st Respondent’s credible explanations (ancestral character of lands, low realisable value, obligation to bear repair/maintenance costs, lack of means, long separation) and concluded on the balance of probabilities that he did not possess the requisite intention to defeat the Petitioner’s claim; therefore the rebuttable presumption under s17(3) was rebutted and the Section 17 application failed (no need to decide bona fides of 2nd Respondent).
5 Mar 2021

AU YEUNG PUI CHUN v. CHENG WING SANG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2434/2015

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she was the sole beneficial owner from 1975; the court found neither party discharged their respective burdens to establish the key factual allegations (no reliable evidence of an express 1999 consensus that assignees were mere nominees; no reliable evidence of an express conditional October 2008 escrow/agreement). The 1999 transfers were arranged to address La Verna's indebtedness and, on the evidence and given the limited rebuttal of the presumption of advancement, there was scope to infer the defendant obtained a beneficial…
17 Nov 2017

KB v. MS

Citation

KB v. MS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC173/2015

Court assessed earning capacity and needs, found H has earning capacity of at least HK$12,000/month, accepted W's assessed needs and the Child's needs, concluded H should pay HK$2,500/month for the Child (backdated to 1 August 2012) with a lump sum make‑up of HK$125,500; found the joint expert valuation of H's 25% business interest (HK$42,006) binding and no distributable family capital beyond limited hidden funds which the court did not order shared; concluded the HK$338,800 from the joint account was spent on family expenses; found the wedding gold from H's mother was not returned and order…
14 Nov 2016

CHU WEN JING JENNIFER v. SIN HON WAI

Citation

CHU WEN JING JENNIFER v. SIN HON WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10/2016

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff sought judgment on a factual basis inconsistent with her pleaded case and because there remained a triable issue as to the plaintiff's state of mind at the time of transfers (whether there was a causative mistake), which could not be resolved on a summary application.
9 May 2002

HO YUNG HON v. HO KAM CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO YUNG HON v. HO KAM CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15909/1999

The court found that the 1st and 2nd defendants exercised dominance and control over the elderly plaintiff producing both presumed and actual undue influence, that the defendants failed to prove the conveyance was a genuine gift or sale, and therefore the April 1999 conveyance (and related dispositions) are set aside.