Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality of contracts

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2025

RE HUI CHI MING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4052/2024

The court found that the Petitioner, having been put on notice by the Debtor's Notice of Opposition dated 6 September 2024 which raised a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds (the Illegality Ground under the MLO), should have ceased prosecution; continuing to prosecute amounted to an abuse of the court's process and justified ordering the Debtor's costs from 6 September 2024 on an indemnity basis while preserving party-to-party costs before that date.
11 Oct 2021

YAU FAT SHING t/a YAU YIM KEE FRUIT IMPORTER v. LEUNG YIU KONG t/a KWAN TAI LOONG FRUIT

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1259
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1009/2017

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the plaintiff's predecessor held the Premises from about 1950 and orally sublet the corner (D's Shop) to the defendant's predecessors in the 1960s; the Grey Land is public Shek Lung Street so the defendant has no proprietary right and the counterclaim for trespass fails; the illegality argument under SOO/CLO/LMPO was rejected following the reasoning in Yip Alice that s.4 LMPO does not automatically strip parties of civil remedies, therefore the oral tenancy is enforceable and plaintiff is entitled to arrears and…
23 Jan 2020

DUMAYAG, ANALYN PEDRO v. LEUNG MEI LING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA23/2016

The leave application is dismissed because the claimant's asserted implied de facto employment contract for the subject period was unlawful for lacking Immigration Department approval; under the reliance rule and Hong Kong authorities the claimant cannot enforce rights founded on that illegality, so the tribunal's decision stood and the appeal has no merit.
14 Jul 2017

XIAO ZHIYONG v. ASIA EQUITY VALUE LTD

Citation

XIAO ZHIYONG v. ASIA EQUITY VALUE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD46/2016

The Court found a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: there was credible evidence that AEVL may have been an unlicensed money lender, that the securities were arguably not registrable under the Companies Ordinance and that the Facility Letter charged an extortionate effective interest rate and unlawful default interest; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside.
23 Jul 2015

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2003/2013

The application to strike out and to determine the legal question under RHC O14A was dismissed because the plaintiffs' resulting trust claim and the defendants' in pari delicto defence depend on disputed factual issues (payment of HK$1 million, the Deceased's knowledge and intention, and which solicitor acted for whom) that cannot be resolved on affidavit; therefore the claim is not obviously unsustainable and must proceed to trial.
21 Jan 2015

RE POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

RE POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW387/2003

The plaintiff's proposed claims are an abuse of the court's process and disclose no reasonable cause of action because they are the same or closely related to matters that were or could and should have been litigated in the 2006 Action (whose final judgment is binding); the constructive trust, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance claims are unparticularised and unsustainable; accordingly the strike-out applications succeed and applications to amend and to join Pegasus and Polyline are refused, with costs ordered against the plaintiff.
5 Sept 2014

CHAN YAU v. CHAN CALVIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN YAU v. CHAN CALVIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA666/2007

Although the court found on fact that the parties had agreed the joint development continued to apply to Lot 660E1, the agreements were unenforceable because performance necessarily required the 2nd defendant to make a false statutory declaration as to sole ownership understood by the Government as inclusive of beneficial ownership; the plaintiff participated with knowledge and was in pari delicto and therefore cannot recover in restitution; the 2nd defendant's slander of title claim failed but the lis pendens registration must be vacated.
25 Jul 1989

FIRST PACIFIC BANK LTD. v. ROBERT H.P. FUNG

Citation

FIRST PACIFIC BANK LTD. v. ROBERT H.P. FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1989

By majority the Court of Appeal held that s.129 of the Banking Ordinance Cap.155, as amended by s.27 of the 1987 Amendment, applied so as to render enforceable principal debts despite contraventions of s.23(1) of the repealed Banking Ordinance 1964 and that, absent any prohibition, guarantees securing such debts are also enforceable; the 1987 amendment was properly read (or treated as intended) to have retrospective effect to the commencement of the 1986 Ordinance for the purposes of these proceedings; accordingly answers to the preliminary questions were: (i) yes, (ii) no, (iii) yes.
6 Jan 1989

HONG NIN BANK LTD v. ROBERT HP FUNG

Citation

HONG NIN BANK LTD v. ROBERT HP FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5736/1986

Because the guarantees were given after 1 April 1976 and the action was commenced after the Ordinance's commencement, section 129 applies to prevent the contravention from rendering the guarantees unenforceable; the preliminary issue is decided for the plaintiff.
21 Jul 1986

HONG KONG SHANGHAI (SHIPPING) LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OF VESSEL "CAVALRY"(Panamanian Flag) AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG SHANGHAI (SHIPPING) LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OF VESSEL "CAVALRY"(Panamanian Flag) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ108/1986

The 7 October 1980 loan agreement was not a money‑lending contract within the ambit of the Money Lenders Ordinance 1911 because (1) HSS was not carrying on a money‑lending business in Hong Kong through WSS and the transactions (advances and repayments) occurred in New York/Bahamas, and (2) the proper law and closest connection of the contract were foreign (New York/Bahamas), so the 1911 Ordinance did not override the parties' chosen law; additionally HSS was an establishment/subsidiary of the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and within statutory exemption. Consequently the arrests wer…