Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan versus joint venture

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2024

ZHANG XINGLI v. ZHANG LI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 939
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1883/2020

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove the HK$2,000,000 was an oral loan; contemporaneous emails, the engagement of advisers, communications with the Plaintiff's assistant and the Defendant's expense records make the Defendant's account that the sum was start‑up capital for an oral joint venture more probable; therefore the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and no restitutionary relief is available.
14 Dec 2007

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN

Citation

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV319/2006

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the HK$38.76 million was advanced as a loan, that the first and third defendants acted together to obtain the loan and used the fifth defendant as the vehicle to receive the funds, and therefore judgment for repayment with interest was payable by the first, third and fifth defendants; the appeals were dismissed.
15 Aug 2006

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN

Citation

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12021/1998

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the HK$38.76 million was advanced and received by D5 for the use of Mr Lo and Mr Kong (acting together) as a loan rather than as a concluded oral joint venture; KY001 and KY002 are insufficiently certain and in parts sham so their specific repayment/interest terms are not proved or enforced; plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of HK$28,260,000 (being the advance less prior repayments) with interest at 5% from 17 May 2001; Dr Lee was not proven to be a partner and counterclaims are dismissed.
15 Aug 2006

西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS

Citation

西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2183/2001

Defendants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the payment was part of an oral joint venture; the plaintiffs proved an advance of HK$38.76 million was made to D5 as a loan but the precise contractual terms in KY001 and KY002 were not proved and are unreliable; therefore plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of HK$28,260,000 with interest; counterclaims dismissed and specified defendants held liable.

Hong Kong Case Law

ZHANG XINGLI v. ZHANG LI

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN

CHEONG SHING LTD v. YU KWAN

西安民生集團股份有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. LO KAM WING AND OTHERS