Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mistaken payment

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH CHUN INDUSTRIAL CENTRE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OWNERS OF WAH CHUN INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, NO. 54 TAI CHUNG ROAD, TSUEN WAN, NEW TERRITORIES, EXCEPT THE DEFENDANT v. COCA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2064/2023

Leave to appeal dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the judge correctly concluded that the Plaintiff's own pleaded quantification and established factual findings (periods of tenancy and varying degrees of access) produced deductions that made it likely the monetary claim fell within the District Court's jurisdiction; the Transfer Order was a correct exercise of case‑management discretion; the Nisi Order was varied to no order as to costs on the Amendment Summons and no order as to costs was ordered nisi on the Variation Application.
23 Sept 2021

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CAI KANG GANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1271/2014

The court held that the Restraint Order was validly made and, on the evidence, including patterns of transactions and the scale of receipts through R2, there remained a real risk that the funds were proceeds of crime; delay alone did not justify varying the Order to enable satisfaction of the Intervener’s judgment and the discretionary relief sought was refused (the Restraint Order was maintained).
8 Feb 2021

MEDICFACE HK LTD 對 SHU YA QIN TRADING CO., LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 151
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1721/2017

Defendant could not establish either bona fide purchaser or change of position defences because it failed to prove it provided value in respect of the received US$54,000 (goods were not shown to belong to the defendant), and the acts of delivering goods and refunding money involved lack of requisite good faith and insufficient inquiry; accordingly the payment was mistaken and plaintiff entitled to restitution of US$54,000 with interest and costs.
30 Nov 2020

QUESSGLOBAL (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. v. SEN XIN JU TECHNOLOGY TRADING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1091
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1221/2020

On the facts pleaded the plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to recover the funds transferred by mistake as a result of email fraud and to declaratory/proprietary reliefs to facilitate tracing; accordingly the court was entitled to depart from normal practice and grant default judgment and make an order under section 38A District Court Ordinance to facilitate recovery; the court did not decide the s52 Trustee Ordinance vesting jurisdiction because the plaintiff withdrew that limb.
7 Aug 2020

PROFOOD INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. KAI FAT FOOD CO., LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 645
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3621/2019

The disputed authenticity of the invoices and email communications, and the plausible connection between the plaintiff or its agent and the Questionable Email Account, create triable issues requiring forensic examination; summary judgment is therefore inappropriate and the defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend.
29 Oct 2019

大象商旅服務（深圳）有限公司 v. RICH TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1352
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5846/2018

The court found on the affidavits and invoices that it was reasonably possible payments were not mistaken because invoices and payment directions showed payments were intended for the defendant or involved agency/back‑to‑back sales; accordingly the defendant demonstrated an arguable defence and summary judgment was inappropriate.
2 Sept 2016

艾德蒙貿易有限公司對吳銘漢以嘉漢貿易公司之名營業及另一人

Citation

艾德蒙貿易有限公司對吳銘漢以嘉漢貿易公司之名營業及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1331/2014

Because the defendants admitted the material facts that the employee committed the fraud while acting as the first defendant’s agent responsible for the plaintiff’s affairs, the law imposes vicarious liability on the first defendant; contributory negligence is not a valid counterclaim or a basis to reduce liability for fraud; therefore strike out of the counterclaim and summary judgment for the plaintiff for HKD 2,671,898.16 plus interest and costs is appropriate.
9 Nov 2010

PEARL POND LTD v. TUNG GA LINEN & COTTON MILLS LTD

Citation

PEARL POND LTD v. TUNG GA LINEN & COTTON MILLS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2629/2007

The court found that Pearl Pond contracted with Tung Ga for the supply of fabrics and instructed delivery to its subcontractor Keys; therefore the payments were not mistaken and Pearl Pond was liable under the supply contracts. Consequently Tung Ga was entitled to judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices in the sum awarded and Pearl Pond's claims were dismissed.
9 Nov 2010

TUNG GA LINEN & COTTON MILLS LTD v. PEARL POND LTD

Citation

TUNG GA LINEN & COTTON MILLS LTD v. PEARL POND LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2630/2007

The court found the documentary and email evidence established that contracts for fabric supply were between Pearl Pond and Tung Ga and that Pearl Pond instructed delivery to Keys and agreed to settle those invoices, and that delivery was FOB Hong Kong so ownership and customs responsibility passed to Pearl Pond; consequently the payments were not mistaken and Tung Ga was entitled to its counterclaim of HK$903,482.82, with the Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
4 Nov 2009

HYUNDAI HOUSEHOLD IMPROVEMENT LTD v. SENZA CORPORATION LTD

Citation

HYUNDAI HOUSEHOLD IMPROVEMENT LTD v. SENZA CORPORATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3763/2006

Payment of US$87,950.20 instead of HK$87,950.20 constituted a mistake; defendant received the sum by mistake and had no defence, therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover HK$598,061.36 with interest from 26 April 2006 and to costs.