Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misrepresentation and rescission

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2025

DELIGHT WEALTHY COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER v. CRYSTAL GOLD INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4538
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1651/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the alleged oral True Arrangement and the Representation were not proved; the Loan Documents were intended to create legally binding obligations and are enforceable; Crystal Gold and Eric liable to repay EUR 8,085,000 and EUR 3,350,000 with interest as ordered; the D5 Charge was dated/created in April 2021, was executed with intent to defeat creditors or at least prejudiced Delight Wealthy and is voidable and declared null and void under s.60 CPO; the defendants' counterclaim for reimbursement was dismissed; final injunction granted in terms of…
7 Nov 2022

葉偉鴻及另一人對葉偉霖

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1656
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV40/2022

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's primary factual findings — that the 2013 transfer was not a legally enforceable conditional gift, that only the first plaintiff succeeded on a misrepresentation claim (not the second), and that the second plaintiff was entitled to repayment of identified joint account funds — were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; accordingly rescission and restitution orders at first instance stand subject to the adjustments made by the appellate court (nominal HKD1 awarded for occupation rent).
27 Jan 2021

MORTGAGE 360 LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TOPWAY FINANCE LTD) v. SY MAN KIT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 59
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1882/2019

The judge found the 2nd defendant was not named as a borrower in Clause 2 of the 1st Loan Agreement and therefore was not a party to or liable under that agreement despite signing pages; extrinsic documents could not cure the omission on rehearing absent special grounds under O58 r1(5); no memorandum complying with s18 Money Lenders Ordinance was shown, rendering the Second Mortgage unenforceable against the 2nd defendant. On those bases the appeal was allowed and the parts of the Master's Order concerning the 2nd defendant were set aside and amended, with leave to appeal out of time granted…
13 Aug 2020

CORE ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHEUK YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP651/2015

The summons to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendments were made late, would introduce new lines of factual inquiry and sensitive investigations, were insufficiently particularized (notably failing to plead how a contingent 5% per month equated to the statutory 'effective rate'), were inconsistent with defendants' pleaded case, and would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs and to the administration of justice if allowed or if trial adjourned.
12 Mar 2020

TING SHUK MAN, SYLVIA v. WONG TAK, by WONG KOWK LEUNG his guardian ad litem

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1440/2016

The plaintiff signed the 2012 tenancy agreement as agent for the registered owner as shown by the document and surrounding facts; the written representation of agency in the agreement was false on the plaintiff's pleaded case and was relied on by the defendant, entitling the defendant to rescind; tenancy by estoppel does not bar the defendant from denying the plaintiff's capacity to sue personally; therefore the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim for rescission and related relief is allowed.
31 Jan 2019

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI

Citation

[2019] HKDC 135
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ579/2013

On the balance of probabilities the defendant mistakenly believed the documents were routine probate documents, the solicitor did not explain their nature, the plaintiff was likely the instructing party to procure the documents, and the defendant was not negligent in signing; therefore non est factum applies and the Deed and Assignment are void as between plaintiff and defendant, defeating plaintiff’s claim and entitling defendant to a declaration.
7 Nov 2018

WONG SEE YIN v. TIN WAN TUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 799
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV160/2016

After a full trial the counterclaim was dismissed and that dismissal remains effective absent a stay or reversal on appeal; filing an appeal does not automatically stay the judgment; therefore there was no existing counterclaim that equalled or exceeded the statutory demand sums and the application to set aside the SDS failed; appeal dismissed with costs.
29 Jan 2018

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. SEABULK SYSTEMS INC. AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA846/2012

Court found plaintiff proved the loan and guarantors' liabilities; defendants failed to prove the pleaded pre-contractual misrepresentation or any advisory duty as pleaded; the APGs did not transfer the right to make demands because URDG 458 requires express assignment of claiming rights and the APGs lacked such express assignment; defendants caused delay and failed to assist in Shanghai proceedings; plaintiff acted reasonably and is therefore entitled to enforce loan and guarantees and to be indemnified for legal costs of the SH Proceedings under the personal guarantees and assignment-relate…
20 Jan 2017

KWAI TAK MING v. K.S. CAPITAL ONE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAI TAK MING v. K.S. CAPITAL ONE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2016

The 1st defendant was found impecunious; its bank balance and undertaking were insufficient given the likely costs exposure; the presence of co-appellants without substantive evidence of means did not preclude ordering security; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs and fixed the amount and timeframe (order for $800,000 payable within 14 days) and taxed costs for the summons.
17 Oct 2016

DIYIXIAN.COM LTD v. G’FIVE INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

DIYIXIAN.COM LTD v. G’FIVE INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA229/2013

Not determinable from the provided excerpt of the judgment.