Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan repayment

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

HOU YUANJIE v. LAW LAP SAN NIXON

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1684
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1110/2023

The court accepted the Plaintiff's version and contemporaneous evidence over the Defendant's, found the Defendant's account to be inconsistent and not credible, held that undue influence was not established (neither actual nor Class 2(B) presumed), concluded the loan was made and funds transferred to Ng's designated accounts, and entered judgment for repayment of HK$2,000,000 with contractual interest from 7 May 2019 and costs to follow the event.
22 Jul 2025

WONG PETER MING CHUNG v. LEE ED

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3187
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2023

On the evidence the 2nd IOU was a replacement of the original IOU and did not evidence any separate Disputed Loan; factually interest was waived from 2004 and subsequent payments were gratuitous; legally any claim for repayment or interest accrued on or soon after the loans in 2000 and is time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance, so the Estate cannot enforce repayment; accordingly double probate was granted to Peter and declaratory relief on the loans was refused as academic.
22 Feb 2024

MODERN GALA (MODELS) LTD v. TSE TSANG YAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1777/2015

Defendants failed to establish a quasi-partnership and failed to prove that sums paid to MGI Shenzhen or third parties were loans repayable by the plaintiff; the court found unlawful diversion of company funds into life insurance policies and payments to defendants where no entitlement was shown and ordered repayment/compensation accordingly; the first defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of proof.
23 Sept 2022

CHAN YAT MAN v. TUNG PO (H.K.) TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2937
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2904/2017

On the totality of credible evidence the Court found the HK$5,000,000 was provided by the plaintiff to the company to reduce SZ Indigo account receivables (not a loan); plaintiff was an unreliable witness on key matters; key challenged documents were not authenticated by plaintiff; plaintiff's substantive claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed in part and monetary damages awarded to defendant in the sum of HK$262,155.67 with interest and costs as ordered.
26 Jul 2022

劉互慈 v. 張永輝（張偉賢之遺產執行人）

Citation

[2022] HKDC 768
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2990/2020

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate any defence with a real prospect of success or other discretionary reason to set aside a regularly entered default judgment; the plaintiff produced credible documentary evidence of the loans and the defendant's limitation defence based on a 31/12/2013 accrual date had no real prospect of success (date taken out of context and due date could have been varied or be as late as July 2014); accordingly the Subject Order dismissing the Setting Aside Summons was upheld, costs awarded to the plaintiff and interim stay on the Chargin…
15 Jan 2021

AU YIN PIN v. SHUN SENG HOP YICK KNITTING FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2566/2014

The court preferred the evidence of the Mother, AYP and APC on the primary factual disputes, found that the Company owed the amounts pleaded to the Mother and AYP and that AWC personally undertook or guaranteed repayment by his cheques, and found that the Company’s claim against APC was defeated by the set-off/cheque discounting arrangement; accordingly judgment was entered for the Mother and AYP and the Company's claim was dismissed.
25 Nov 2020

LI LIANG v. CHIU MAN HON

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2945
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2579/2016

The court accepted objective contemporaneous evidence (the TYG Agreement and timing/quantum of payments) and found on the balance of probabilities that the HK$7,992,000 paid on 16 January 2015 was payment due under the TYG Agreement and not repayment of Li's loan; accordingly the Agreement between Li and Chiu remained unpaid except for payments specifically made, leaving Chiu indebted to Li in the net sum of HK$8,000,000.
20 Aug 2019

葉雅琳對唐家威

Citation

[2019] HKDC 974
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ776/2016

The court preferred the plaintiff's evidence as more consistent with contemporaneous documents and found the written agreements and investment activity established liability; the defendant's inconsistent testimony and prior statements to police undermined his credibility; the 24 September 2013 assault constituted actual ouster of the plaintiff from the jointly owned flat, entitling her to half the market rent for the exclusion period; plaintiff's other monetary claims were proven; defendant's counterclaim for damage was not established and was dismissed. Therefore plaintiff's claims succeed a…
3 May 2019

NGAI YING CHU JUDY AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG CHI LING VINCY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA991/2015

The contemporaneous documents together with multiple written acknowledgements signed by the Defendant established the existence and quantum of the 1st Plaintiff's loans and prevented a limitation defence; the evidence established that the Defendant withdrew and used company funds for personal purposes, entitling the 2nd Plaintiff to damages; the Defendant's asserted defences were unsupported and rejected, therefore judgment is entered for the Plaintiffs for the specified sums with interest and costs.
29 Mar 2019

PANG LIN, Administrator of the Estate of KO CHUN WAY WAYNE, deceased v. GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL KINDERGARTEN AND NURSERY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA285/2017

Plaintiff, as administratrix, had capacity to sue; contemporaneous documents established loans totalling HK$1,876,100; defendant failed to prove repayment or the alleged forbearance agreement and was absent at trial so evidence was disregarded; alternatively, even if the September Memorandum reflected an agreement it was unenforceable because it was so illogical in context that it could not have been intended to bind the parties; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$1,876,100 with interest and costs.