Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repayment of loans

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2022

ALCO HOLDINGS LTD v. WORLD CROWN INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP795/2022

The court refused relief because the defendant legitimately regarded the contemporaneous documents as evidencing loans repayable on demand and the company's responses did not demonstrate that presentation of a petition would have been an abuse of process; accordingly the originating and inter partes summonses were dismissed and the defendant's undertaking was released.
25 Jun 2021

LEE CHI HANG AND OTHERS v. WELL DONE GARMENT FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA227/2012

Court found on the balance of credible contemporaneous evidence that (1) the 1996 allotment was valid with consent of WSL and WWC; (2) the 2001 share transfers were valid because WC had capacity and both WSL and WWC knew of and agreed to the transfers as part of WC's Scheme to transfer assets to WYW; (3) the sums claimed as loans by plaintiffs originated from WYW's Macau account and were entrusted to WWC to apply, therefore plaintiffs' loan claims fail but WWC's estate must account for an unaccounted balance (HK$2,569,000); (4) Well Done is entitled to repayment of the MPF overpayment; (5) Ne…
12 Jul 2012

CHENG YU PIK LILIBETHE v. YAU YI KWONG

Citation

CHENG YU PIK LILIBETHE v. YAU YI KWONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3436/2010

The court found as a matter of construction and implication of the parties' arrangement that profit shares were to be distributed after tax; the plaintiff failed to prove that disputed payments were bonuses independent of profit distribution or that she repaid the sums claimed; the HK$20,000 was a loan not a reimbursement, and therefore the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim for HK$172,898.80 succeeded.
6 May 2011

IAN HUNG WAI v. CHEUNG SAU KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

IAN HUNG WAI v. CHEUNG SAU KUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV210/2010

The trial judge found on the evidence that there was no mutual commitment to marry and that the transfers were absolute gifts given out of love; loans and ring were not proved. The appellate court upheld those primary findings because the judge assessed the evidence as a whole, made permissible credibility evaluations, and there was no basis to conclude the findings were plainly wrong; therefore the gifts were not returnable and the claims for loans and ring failed.
13 Sept 2010

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN

Citation

CHAN SIU LIN v. CHAN SIU CHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1577/2007

On the balance of probabilities the court found that the $900,000 pension was validly gifted by the deceased sister (Siu Fung) to the plaintiff (Chan Siu Lin) by transfer into the joint account coupled with declarations and conduct evidencing intention; therefore the $200,000 paid on 15 August 2003 was made from funds belonging to the plaintiff and, on the plaintiff's credible evidence, was a loan to the defendant repayable on demand. The defendant failed to prove the contrary (that the payment was a gift by the deceased).
17 Oct 2008

CAPITAL UNION INC. v. CHINA RAILWAY INVESTMENTS GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CAPITAL UNION INC. v. CHINA RAILWAY INVESTMENTS GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2432/2007

Summary judgment was refused because the Defendant demonstrated sufficient prospects of success on substantial factual and legal issues (invalidity of authorising board resolutions given alleged single director and credible allegations of sham transactions) so that the dispute could not be resolved on the affidavit evidence; Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend and costs of the application ordered nisi to be in the cause.
9 Oct 2007

THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HO EDWARD

Citation

THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. HO EDWARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1231/2004

The court held the interrogatories related to other agents and general information irrelevant to the defendant's individual issues, amounted to a fishing expedition and risked alleging unpleaded fraud; accordingly the Master's order to withdraw the interrogatories was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
27 Mar 2007

TUNG TAT ENGINEERING LTD v. WING KEY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

TUNG TAT ENGINEERING LTD v. WING KEY CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4114/2004

The court accepted the Plaintiff's contemporaneous payment records and signed payment notices over the Defendant's assertion of an extra HKD 70,000 payment; the court held the subcontract obligated the Plaintiff to clear site waste per contract terms and accepted specific deductions for waste disposal and guard‑rail repair as recorded, accepted that the Plaintiff carried out levelling work and rejected the Defendant's assertion the 2nd contract was performed for scrap value; the two payments in Aug–Sep 2000 were loans and are repayable. On that basis judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for…
17 Oct 2005

WONG KING LUN v. HONG KIAO GO AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KING LUN v. HONG KIAO GO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ67/2005

There are triable issues on the purpose of the US$65,000 (loan v retention for commission) such that defendants get unconditional leave to defend that claim; however the contemporaneous emails and admissions render the defendants' contention that the two HK$100,000 payments were not loans incredible, so summary judgment is entered for repayment of the two HK$100,000 sums with interest at prime from writ to judgment and thereafter at judgment rate.
19 Jul 2003

INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS

Citation

INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3202/2001

The court struck out the Statement of Claim because the central allegations (the oral True Agreement and the February 1998 Agreement) were incredible, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and prior pleadings, and would not support enforceable causes of action; the asserted breaches of the Shareholders Agreement were unsustainable given the board discretion, prior case law and the terms of the agreement; the conspiracy claim failed if the underlying contract claims failed; and the loan repayment claim lacked credible basis given repayment to CSS Bank and internal inconsistencies — cumul…