Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality and public policy

Legal area

Court

12 Jan 2026

ZHU HUAYUE v. LI KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1721/2019

On the balance of probabilities the court found the 2010 sale and 2011 assignment were sham transactions: GB/Gladstrong paid HK$4.5m into Wang’s account and Wang advanced HK$2.2m to complete the stated purchase, Zhu did not provide the purchase money, Zhu signed a Letter of Undertaking acknowledging no beneficial interest, and Zhu was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; illegality did not bar GB's equitable remedy given parity of culpability and public policy considerations, therefore Zhu holds legal title on trust for GB and must transfer the property and comply with ancillar…
18 Aug 2025

CHAN KA FOOK v. CHAN CHOI KWONG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1362
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6022/2020

The written Agreement of 16 May 2008 contained the ownership allocation (including the ground floor and garden to the plaintiff); the defendant failed to prove unilateral mistake or forgery; the agreement was not unenforceable for illegality because there was no misrepresentation to government and the case is a 'jump the gun' scenario; the plaintiff acquired an equitable beneficial interest by paying construction costs and the defendant holds the relevant parts on trust; specific performance to transfer legal title and an injunction for trespass are appropriate remedies; nominal damages award…
14 Oct 2024

宁波梅山保税港区和光泰润二号股权投资中心(有限合伙) v. 北京微影时代科技有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT61/2022

The summons for extension of time was dismissed primarily because R1 displayed inordinate delay of over a year and provided misleading explanations; materially there was no prejudice from A's inadvertent non-disclosure, the Award was final and not open to appeal, and the alleged condition precedent and public policy/illegality arguments did not justify refusal of enforcement; accordingly the Enforcement Order stands, a Charging Order Absolute is made and costs are awarded to A on an indemnity basis.
28 Apr 2021

IDEMITSU CHEMICALS (HONG KONG) CO. LTD v. BRILLIANT ONE SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA148/2020

The discharge application was dismissed and the Mareva injunction continued because plaintiff had shown a good arguable case based on the evidence of fraud and the implausibility and suspicious features of D10's ownership, business records and receipt of funds via underground foreign‑exchange channels, which undermined D10's bona fide purchaser and change of position defences; there was a real risk of dissipation and the balance of convenience favoured continuation; allegations of material non‑disclosure were either unfounded or immaterial.
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

HCA1773/2012

The appeal is allowed because on the evidence before the court the Father and Son have put forward arguable defences of undue influence and that the Plaintiff's loans may be tainted by illegality arising from prior related-company loans; given the close relationships, non-disclosure and suspicious payment patterns, it is fair to permit trial and forensic discovery rather than uphold default judgments entered by the Master.
23 May 2014

PATHAK RAVI DUTT v. SANJEEV MAHESHWARI

Citation

PATHAK RAVI DUTT v. SANJEEV MAHESHWARI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1935/2011

On the evidence the court found the plaintiff knew the DH Contract was for employment as a domestic helper and was not induced by fraudulent representations to sign it; there was no reliable proof of any enforceable oral agreement to employ him in the diamond trade; the police and prosecution exercised independent judgment so the elements of malicious prosecution were not established. Therefore the plaintiff's claims failed and were dismissed.
7 Feb 2013

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV43/2012

The appeal is allowed in respect of the striking out and dismissal: the order of Deputy Judge Saunders was interlocutory and lacked the finality required for issue estoppel; the plaintiffs did not abuse process under Henderson v Henderson given the flawed third-party joinder attempt and circumstances; accordingly the strike-out was wrong and the plaintiffs' claims should proceed. The order setting aside the default judgments remains in force so defendants may defend. Costs follow the event subject to specified disallowance for bundle preparation.
1 Apr 2008

LOYAL LUCK TRADING LTD v. TAM CHUN WAH

Citation

LOYAL LUCK TRADING LTD v. TAM CHUN WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV217/2007

The Court held the access road was a continuous and apparent made road and the claimed right of way arose by implication under Wheeldon v Burrows and would in any event pass under section 16 on assignment or charge; short non‑use did not defeat the easement; the illegality of certain uses of the dominant land did not prevent acquisition or enforcement of the right of way because the use of the access road itself was lawful; accordingly the declaration and injunction in favour of the plaintiff were upheld and the defendant's appeal dismissed.
30 Mar 2007

HONEY BEE ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDEN LUCKY CO LTD

Citation

HONEY BEE ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDEN LUCKY CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV405/2006

The Court allowed the appeal and granted leave to amend because the application was made before trial, no substantial prejudice or bad faith was shown, the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient particulars of the relevant Mainland law and the plea of illegality (smuggling) was not plainly unarguable; expert evidence is not required at this interlocutory stage and the judge had misapplied the proper principles in exercising his discretion.
12 Apr 2006

HONEY BEE ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDENLUCKY CO, LTD

Citation

HONEY BEE ELECTRONIC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLDENLUCKY CO, LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5125/2003

Amendment to plead illegality under PRC law was disallowed because the Plaintiff failed to plead the relevant PRC law and particulars or produce supporting evidence showing how PRC law rendered the agreement illegal; other proposed amendments were allowed. The Defendant's strike out application was granted on a conditional basis: unless the Plaintiff files and serves a notice in response within 21 days, the Claim and the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim will be struck out and judgment entered for the Defendant as claimed in the counterclaim; costs orders were made as set out by the Court.