Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mental capacity to contract

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2025

SUN HUNG KAI CREDIT LTD 對 YEUNG HUNG及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 455
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA674/2021

Because the second defendant failed to file any witness or expert evidence and the plaintiff produced consistent contemporaneous documents, witnessed signing, and recorded verification showing the defendant understood and validly executed the loan agreements and mortgages, the court concluded on the balance of probabilities that the loans and security were enforceable; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to judgment for the calculated outstanding debt, interest and costs and the counterclaim to set aside the transactions was dismissed.
19 May 2022

FINE TALENT FINANCE LTD v. THE ESTATE OF LEUNG PAK WAI, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1975/2017

On the balance of the evidence the court concluded the borrower had the requisite contractual capacity on 24 December 2014; plaintiff’s witnesses gave credible evidence that terms were explained and no ostensible incapacity was apparent; plaintiff had no actual or constructive notice; non est factum and undue influence defences failed; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the adjusted loan sum, contractual interest from 21 August 2017, vacant possession and enforcement against the guarantor with costs on indemnity basis.
21 Mar 2019

IAN HAYDN REED v. CHAN SUK FUN the administratrix of the estate of WAN LAI HA, the administratrix of the estate of CHAN SHUK CHING PINKY (Deceased)

Citation

[2019] HKDC 385
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4560/2007

The Agreement was authentic and, on the balance of evidence including contemporaneous medical notes and commercial reasonableness of the deal, the deceased had mental capacity when she signed; the defendant and administratrix prevented completion by refusing to accept the initial payment and therefore cannot rely on the buyer's failure to pay; paragraphs 4,6 and 8 must be given effect by implication so that if the seller died before the annual payments the buyer need only pay the initial HK$500,000; specific performance of the Agreement was therefore ordered and the defendant's counterclaim d…
14 Jun 2013

KING\'S CITY HOLDINGS LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

KING\'S CITY HOLDINGS LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2012

The appeal was dismissed: the Court held that permitting De Monsa to re‑litigate the mental capacity of its director on substantially the same evidence already decided in the Probus actions would be an abuse of process and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute; clause 17(3) is a liquidated damages clause that does not preclude a common law damages claim and thus does not bar King's City from claiming the difference in price and expenses; provisional pre‑sales did not disable King's City from performing because they created later equitable interests which are subordinate to…
15 Feb 2012

MULTI STAR INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

MULTI STAR INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV272/2010

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the trial judge's factual findings and expert preference that Lauw Siang Liong was not suffering from dementia at the material times and therefore had the mental capacity to enter the relevant provisional and formal sale and purchase agreements; the appeals were dismissed and indemnity costs awarded given the overwhelming contrary evidence and the unreliability/partisanship of the incapacity case.
15 Feb 2012

PROBUS LTD v. TREBLE & TRIPLE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PROBUS LTD v. TREBLE & TRIPLE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2010

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding—based on preference of expert evidence (Prof Lieh‑Mak), contemporaneous medical notes, witnesses (estate agents, solicitors, banks) and the claimant's transactional conduct—that Lauw Senior was not suffering from dementia and had the mental capacity to understand the sale and purchase transactions; accordingly the agreements were enforceable, the defendants' appeals were dismissed and indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents.
15 Feb 2012

FORTUNE ASSET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

FORTUNE ASSET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV271/2010

The trial judge's factual finding that Lauw Senior did not suffer from dementia at the material times was supported by overwhelming contemporaneous evidence (treating doctors' records and reports, Prof Lieh-Mak's expert opinion, conduct demonstrating understanding, and estate agents' evidence) and was entitled to deference on appeal; therefore the contracts were enforceable, the appeals were dismissed and indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents.
17 Nov 2010

PROBUS LTD v. TREBLE & TRIPLE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PROBUS LTD v. TREBLE & TRIPLE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2723/2008

On the balance of probabilities the judge found that Lauw Senior was not suffering from dementia during the material contract dates and in any event the Purchasers had held him out and acquiesced in his conduct such that he had both actual and apparent authority to bind the companies; therefore the sale contracts were enforceable, the vendors were entitled to damages as assessed, estate agents' claims failed and indemnity claims were stayed sine die pending any future third‑party actions.
7 Sept 2007

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. LI CHIK MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. LI CHIK MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5387/2001

Judge found on evidence the 1st Defendant had capacity and denied undue influence; however the court accepted evidence that material interest-related items (handling fee, prepayment/early redemption charges, overdue interest) were charged though omitted from the signed memoranda, and demand documents suggested higher effective rates; plaintiff breached s18 (form/copy of memorandum and required particulars) and s22(1)(c) (allowing increase of interest on default), rendering the loan agreements illegal and unenforceable under the Money Lenders Ordinance; insufficient evidence existed to find br…