Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prevention principle

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2026

YEUNG FUK KWONG AND OTHERS v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1104/2024

The Bank proved a prima facie case under Order 88; the Defendants’ misrepresentation and mistake defences are not bona fide given contradictory written documentation and conduct; the prevention principle is inapplicable because the Defendants failed to show causation between the Bank’s alleged breaches and the Bank’s right to demand repayment; claims of advisory breach and failure to execute are triable matters for the HCA action and do not bar the Bank from obtaining summary enforcement, therefore the Bank is entitled to enforcement, vacant possession and costs as ordered.
20 Mar 2026

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD v. YEUNG FUK KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP559/2025

The Bank demonstrated a prima facie case under Order 88 to enforce the Mortgages; the Defendants' misrepresentation and mistake defences were not credible or bona fide and were affirmed by subsequent conduct; there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or causative breach by the Bank to invoke the prevention principle; claims of breach of advisory duty and failure to execute instructions are triable in the HCA action but do not bar summary enforcement of the Mortgages under the circumstances; accordingly the Bank's draft orders were made and the Mortgagors' Summons dismissed.
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP72/2025

The court varied the nisi costs order and directed DBS to pay the Defendants' interlocutory costs because the Conversion Summonses raised substantial triable issues (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle) that had been signalled in correspondence and affirmations such that the originating summons procedure was inappropriate; DBS should have anticipated the factual disputes and its resistance to conversion justified an award of interlocutory costs to the Defendants, with assessed sums fixed by the court.
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP71/2025

The court varied the costs order nisi and ordered DBS Bank to pay the defendants' costs of the Conversion Summonses including the hearing because the defendants established triable issues (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle/breach of confidentiality) and DBS should have anticipated substantial factual disputes that made the originating summons procedure inappropriate; the court exercised its discretion to depart from the usual order in cause and assessed a reasonable quantum after disallowing or reducing specific items and penalising certain conduct relating to the T…
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi because, on the facts and correspondence, the plaintiff should have anticipated substantial factual disputes (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle/breach of confidentiality) that made the originating summons procedure inappropriate; accordingly DBS Bank was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the Conversion Summonses (including the hearing) and specified costs for the Costs Summons and Time Summons.
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP69/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi and ordered DBS Bank to pay the defendants' costs because the defendants had raised triable defences (no right to call loans and breach of the prevention principle) supported by correspondence and affirmations that should have put the plaintiff on notice that the originating summons procedure was inappropriate; DBS Bank's resistance was therefore penalized. The court assessed the costs statements on a broad‑brush basis, disallowed certain items (eg unnecessary solicitor duplication and late filing correspondence) and fixed awards…
16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LIMITED v. LEGEND WORLD CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/2025

The court found credible triable issues — namely whether DBS Bank had given reasons for calling in the loans and whether DBS's alleged breach of bank-customer confidentiality caused CNAM to lose a major client such that the prevention principle could bar enforcement — and therefore the originating summonses could not be summarily determined; unconditional leave to defend was granted and the matters were converted to writs and consolidated.
16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP69/2025

The court found there are triable issues: (a) the plaintiff did not adequately explain reasons for exercising its right to demand immediate repayment, making the call-in arguable; and (b) there is an arguable prevention principle defence based on an alleged breach of banker-customer confidentiality that plausibly caused CNAM to lose a major client and precipitated inability to pay. Accordingly the originating summonses must be converted to writ actions, leave to defend is granted and consolidation is ordered to permit full adversarial resolution with pleadings and discovery.
16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HAPPY GLOBAL INC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP71/2025

The court held that the defendants raised sufficiently credible triable issues: (1) DBS Bank issued demands without identifying an Event of Default or explaining reasons for calling in instalment loans, making the validity of the demand arguable; and (2) there is an arguable breach of banker-customer confidentiality by DBS that may have caused CNAM to lose a major client with consequential inability to repay, invoking the prevention principle. Those triable factual issues require conversion of the originating summonses to writs and unconditional leave to defend.
16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. UNIVERSAL TALENT INC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP72/2025

The court found credible, triable issues: DBS Bank failed to give reasons for demanding immediate repayment and there is an arguable breach of banker-customer confidentiality which could, on the evidence, have caused loss of a major client and consequent repayment failure; those issues are not suitable for summary determination under Order 88 and warrant conversion to writ and unconditional leave to defend.