Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre‑judgment interest

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

SILVERCORD LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 774
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6505/2024

Plaintiffs took all reasonable mitigation steps and defendant failed to prove avoidable loss; the ex-gratia rental reductions are not deductible from damages because reimbursement entitlement arose prior to and independently of the repudiatory breach and reflected parties' agreement; pre-judgment interest is disallowed only for the period of unexplained plaintiff inaction (31 March 2023 to 23 January 2024); damages and costs awarded accordingly.
15 May 2026

CHOW LUEN FAT v. WONG YAT KONG

Citation

[2026] HKDC 735
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6688/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's account that the loan was made by the plaintiff in his personal capacity and that Tak Lee advanced the funds at the plaintiff's direction to reduce a director's loan; the defendant's signature on the bilingual Loan Confirmation corroborated the defendant's personal liability for the outstanding $500,000; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $500,000 with interest and costs as ordered.
8 May 2026

ZHANG XIANGHUI v. AMAX AND ASSOCIATES LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 748
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5624/2023

The defendant was liable for defamation for publishing the Statements; the Statements bore the natural and ordinary meanings set out by the court; on quantum general damages of HK$200,000 were appropriate having regard to limited circulation and lack of aggravating evidence; aggravated damages were refused for lack of evidence of increased injury and absence of plaintiff testimony; an injunction was granted; costs and pre-judgment interest were awarded to the plaintiff.
4 May 2026

OZZO TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD v. I VILLAS LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 750
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2807/2023

On the evidence the defendant was a contracting party to the additional services by conduct and documentary communications; the plaintiff completed the contractual deliverables; the defendant failed to adduce evidence to substantiate pleaded breaches of implied terms, so the plaintiff is entitled to the outstanding contractual fees, pre-judgment interest and costs.
8 Apr 2026

YUEN YIU YAM v. WONG YIN LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2952/2018

No enforceable investment agreement was proved between the principal parties; Mr and Mrs Wong were not agents of Mr Yuen, but Mr Wong assumed fiduciary duties (constructive trustee) in receiving and holding distributions for Mr Yuen; the mortgagors objectively agreed to a single joint loan of HKD13,000,000 to be remitted as a lump sum; apportionment between the Borrowers is 34.23% (Wong group), 45% (Ng group) and 20.77% (Mrs Yuen); applying those proportions to the agreed total repaid to DDF (HKD16,534,219.50) produced each party's liability and revealed the Wong group overpaid, entitling the…
8 Apr 2026

YAN CAIPING AND OTHERS v. WU MINGUANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1956
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1746/2018

No investment agreement was proved between the accused investors and no agency existed; however the court found that all mortgagors agreed to be jointly liable to DDF for a single HK$13,000,000 loan remitted to 720 Co, and apportioned liability between the three borrower groups as Wong group 34.23%, Ng group 45% and Mrs Yuen 20.77%. Applying those proportions to the agreed total repaid to DDF (HK$16,534,219.50) produced rateable contributions; the Wong group overpaid and is entitled to HK$449,598.78 from Wu and MDC and HK$2,734,157.39 from Mrs Yuen; Mr Wong held certain distributions as const…
1 Apr 2026

MAJESTIC PLAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. JI CHANGQUN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1755
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1494/2019

The court refused an unconditional stay because the defendant failed to demonstrate an overwhelmingly strong appeal or cogent evidence of irreparable deleterious effect; however, to balance interests and minimize prejudice to the successful plaintiffs, the court granted a stay of execution pending the appeal on the condition that the principal sums and accrued pre-judgment interest be paid into court within 21 days; costs ordered in the cause up to 13 February 2026 and defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs after that date, subject to summary assessment; defendant must lodge opposition to costs w…
27 Jan 2026

GUSTAVO ALFREDO RUBIO v. WANG YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 40
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4966/2025

On the admitted pleaded facts the plaintiff transferred US$59,800 to the 1st defendant in reliance on a fraudulent scheme; the defendant was enriched at the plaintiff’s expense and retention is unjust, entitling the plaintiff to restitution and equitable relief; consequently default judgment was properly entered, a personal restitutionary order for US$59,800 and a declaration of constructive trust over the Fund and traceable proceeds were appropriate, pre-judgment interest was awarded at HSBC prime +1% from the date of the Writ, and costs were awarded and summarily assessed.
9 Jan 2026

莊如芬 v. 黃志輝 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 24
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5245/2025

Service by registered post and delivery to known addresses was valid; defendants did not file a defence so the pleaded facts are treated as admitted; the pleaded words were published, identified the plaintiff and were defamatory; malice supporting malicious falsehood was inferable from pleaded facts; on the evidence there is a real risk of further publication; therefore final judgment is entered for plaintiff with a permanent injunction limited to the Zello app, removal order for the recordings, damages to be assessed and costs awarded.
16 Dec 2025

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. DRACO HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2120
Court

District Court
Case number

DCTC192/2025

The appeal is allowed in respect of the pre-judgment interest rate because the statutory scheme in section 71(11) IRO and binding practice in tax recovery cases support awarding pre-judgment interest at the judgment debt rate absent exceptional circumstances, and the defendant's asserted grounds did not amount to such circumstances; accordingly the Registrar's award of interest at best lending rate plus 1% was set aside and replaced with judgment-rate interest for the relevant period.