Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oral agreement

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

MADAM SUN LING v. GROUP JOY (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2388/2024

Although there is a serious question to be tried as to the plaintiff's equitable interest arising from an alleged oral agreement and corporate control, the balance of convenience and risk of acute injustice favoured preserving the status quo and refusing a mandatory interlocutory injunction to evict the plaintiff and children; damages are an adequate remedy for the defendants and the defendants' delay undermined their urgency.
15 May 2026

MADAM SUN LING v. GROUP JOY (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP765/2024

Defendants failed to show the high degree of assurance required to justify an interlocutory mandatory injunction; there is a serious question to be tried over beneficial ownership and an alleged oral agreement and eviction would cause acute and potentially irremediable injustice to the plaintiff and children. The balance of convenience therefore favours preserving the status quo and dismissing the application for a mandatory injunction.
11 May 2026

CHINA MINSHENG BANKING CORP., LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH v. TOP POWER ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA265/2020

Defendants failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement; key defendants' witnesses were found unreliable and incredible, contemporaneous documentation and subsequent negotiated amendment deeds and repayment conduct were inconsistent with the alleged condition precedent, and the suggested commercial terms were inherently improbable; accordingly the alleged oral condition precedent did not exist and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with interest under the Facility Agreement.
30 Apr 2026

LEUNG YUET WAH v. TANG MAI LOK by TANG PING FAI his guardian ad litem

Citation

[2026] HKDC 751
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6587/2020

The Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement on the balance of probabilities because (1) the Plaintiff was not a credible or reliable witness on the central issues; (2) there was an absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence for a substantial informal promise made in the context of contentious matrimonial negotiations; (3) recorded telephone conversations undermined the Plaintiff's account; and (4) the overall context and the Plaintiff's conduct made the alleged agreement inherently improbable; accordingly the claim was dismissed.
27 Apr 2026

RE LAW SIU LUN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2364
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8176/2025

The court found no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: contemporaneous text messages and seven receipts from Funing supported the Petitioner’s loan claim; the Debtor's later unparticularised oral agreement allegation was inconsistent with documentary evidence (EM Form showing employment with Funing) and raised late without explanation; prior HCSD application was dismissed as out of time. Accordingly a usual bankruptcy order was appropriate.
17 Apr 2026

SUNG CHUN PIU v. BASIC ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 641
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1523/2021

The court found on credibility and commercial common sense, supported by contemporaneous spreadsheets and payment patterns, that an oral contract (P's Agreement) existed obliging the defendant to pay the plaintiff 90% of net advisory fees; labeling payments as ‘bonus’ in internal documents did not alter contractual rights and the defendant's late change of case undermined its reliability.
13 Mar 2026

TSUNG LUNG CHAI v. TSANG LIN ON

Citation

[2026] HKDC 419
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3062/2023

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged oral/common intention agreement or the Ownership Agreement because viva voce evidence was inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous documents and critical witnesses (NK Tsang and builder's representative) did not give evidence; the defendant failed to prove the Terms of Residence or a Rental Agreement by Conduct because alleged telephone offers and acceptance by conduct were not established with the necessary certainty and clarity; therefore on the balance of probabilities neither substantive claim succeeded and legal titl…
14 Jul 2025

PROFOUND SUCCESS INVESTMENT LTD v. MULTI SUCCESS TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA238/2024

Master’s order granting summary judgment was set aside; the plaintiff established a prima facie case on liability under the Guarantee but there were genuine weaknesses and triable issues as to quantum (incomplete accounting and uncertain distributions under the sanctioned Scheme) so interlocutory judgment was entered on liability while leave to defend was granted on quantum; the estoppel relief seeking declaration that plaintiff was barred from enforcing the Guarantee was struck out for lack of arguable case or triable issue.
2 Jul 2025

YS INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WELLFIRM HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2518/2018

The Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd Defendant orally agreed to pay 1% commission or that the Plaintiff had been appointed as the seller's agent; the sole witness for the Plaintiff was found unreliable and his evidence contradicted by documentary/more credible witness evidence (including name card handling and chat records); accordingly the claim was dismissed and costs awarded to the Defendants.
25 Jun 2025

WONG HONG GAY PATRICK JONATHAN v. SIEW YEW KHUEN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1946/2021

On the balance of probabilities and weighing contemporaneous documents and witness credibility, the Court found the Defendant failed to prove repayment pursuant to the Loan Agreement; the HK$9,000,000 was more probably remuneration under an oral agreement and the HK$6,150,000 was not repayment of loan interest. Defendant therefore liable under the Loan Agreement for the advances and agreed interest; judgment entered for Plaintiff for the outstanding sum and interest and Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.