Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repayment of advances

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2017

RE LO KWAI YING LOUISA

Citation

RE LO KWAI YING LOUISA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3145/2015

Debtor failed to demonstrate any bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the Agreements unambiguously made the MF Payments, training fee and advance repayable upon termination or competition; there were no vitiating factors (no actionable misrepresentation, non est factum, or unconscionability), and any overstatement in the demand did not cause prejudice; accordingly the bankruptcy petition succeeds and a bankruptcy order is made with costs.
28 Sept 2016

RE CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

RE CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW398/2015

The Company and opposing contributories produced credible contemporaneous evidence (notably a 30 September 2010 report describing an intention to inject funds into Hong Kong companies to comply with Mainland foreign exchange rules and to retire the Company’s bank borrowings) and established substantial grounds for a bona fide defence that the advances were intended as capital injections and that the loan agreements may be sham; accordingly the petitions cannot succeed at this interlocutory stage and should not proceed to winding up on the petitioners' case alone.
12 May 2009

ROBERT YIP v. WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

ROBERT YIP v. WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV24/2008

Payments were not loans within s.157H where they were made to meet or reimburse company expenditure; however, because the appellant failed to prove he expended more than $450,000, he was liable to refund the unexpended balance of company funds (resulting in judgment for $1.25 million plus interest).
13 Feb 2003

WINTERTHUR LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. TSUI CHING KUEN

Citation

WINTERTHUR LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. TSUI CHING KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10972/1998

The plaintiff proved advances for most months by contemporaneous records and was entitled to judgment for principal sum of HK$165,005.06; specific alleged payments in March and August 1997 were not proven and were disallowed; plaintiff must recalculate contractual finance charges at 0.75% per month for the allowed principal up to 25 September 1997, and the defendant must pay interest on HK$165,005.06 and the recalculated finance charges at 9% per annum from 25 September 1997 to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate; costs ordered nisi except for the adjourned hearing of 19 Augu…
11 Feb 2000

CHAN SIU KAM v. CHAN SHUK HANG CHRISTINE

Citation

CHAN SIU KAM v. CHAN SHUK HANG CHRISTINE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2815/1997

On the facts the court found no loan agreement or advances to the defendant as claimed: payments were either part of a share purchase or ex gratia gifts (AUD 4,000), the plaintiff's and Miss Ho's accounts were disbelieved, therefore both claim and counterclaim fail and costs are payable to the defendant on an indemnity basis, nisi.
25 Jul 1995

PINK TIME LIMITED v. KENJO SHUNJI

Citation

PINK TIME LIMITED v. KENJO SHUNJI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA787/1994

On the evidence the documented employment terms and company accounts demonstrated no contractual obligation by the company to pay the Defendant's salaries tax; the company permitted the Defendant to use company funds to pay his tax but such payments were advances recorded as debits to the Defendant and are therefore repayable.
11 Apr 1986

EAST ASIA AETNA SERVICES CO LTD v. CHAU SIU PING PAYMOND AND OTHERS

Citation

EAST ASIA AETNA SERVICES CO LTD v. CHAU SIU PING PAYMOND AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7464/1984

No collateral contract or assurances were proved that waived Clause 13; no estoppel arose because no clear assurances were proved and there was no detrimental reliance sufficient to bar recovery; alleged misrepresentations and economic duress were not established; trade custom did not and could not override clear contract terms; accordingly Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for repayment of advances and Defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE LO KWAI YING LOUISA

RE CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT CO LTD

ROBERT YIP v. WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

WINTERTHUR LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. TSUI CHING KUEN

CHAN SIU KAM v. CHAN SHUK HANG CHRISTINE

PINK TIME LIMITED v. KENJO SHUNJI

EAST ASIA AETNA SERVICES CO LTD v. CHAU SIU PING PAYMOND AND OTHERS