Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rescission of contract

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

MA KIN WAH v. TAM TAK MING

Citation

[2026] HKDC 653
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5748/2025

Defendant failed to give satisfactory answers to material requisitions: the undischarged 1941 mortgage constituted a subsisting encumbrance preventing assignment of a legal estate free from encumbrances, and defendant failed to produce the Two Deeds referenced in the prior assignment so could not discharge purchaser's objection to title; accordingly purchaser was entitled to rescind the SPA, recover the HK$400,000 deposit and damages for wasted legal costs, and defendant must pay costs.
30 Dec 2025

HA CHI KUEN v. LAU BOND INTERNATIONAL LTD (formerly known as INSTECH INTERNATIONAL LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2124
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP804/2025

The Amended Writ did not claim any proprietary right or seek any order affecting the Subject Property; it sought monetary relief and rescission of the tenancy agreement only, therefore it was not a registrable lis pendens under the Land Registration Ordinance and the attempted registration must be cancelled and removed; costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
30 Sept 2025

LI YIDONG AND ANOTHER v. CHEN PING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2495/2024

Intervener's joinder dismissed because, although it has an interest connected to the subject matter, joinder is not necessary, just or convenient: joinder would add cost, delay and multiplicity, produce no prejudice to the Intervener if not joined (claims between P1 and Intervener could proceed by arbitration), and the application was delayed. The related stay to arbitration is unnecessary given dismissal of joinder. Letters of request were refused in the exercise of discretion because the documents were not necessary in the interests of justice given the existing one‑off s.21 disclosure orde…
29 Aug 2025

FUKU GROUP LIMITED formerly known as LIONSTAR GROUP LTD v. RAKICH INVESTMENTS LTD formerly known as COMPUTER DYNAMICS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2400/2018

Where a party knowingly or recklessly makes false representations as to title to the subject matter inducing another to enter a contract, the contract is voidable for fraudulent misrepresentation; the representee may rescind the contract ab initio and recover restitution and damages, and the individual representors are personally liable; applying these principles, the Agreement was rescinded and damages awarded to Rakich Investments.
29 Aug 2025

FUKU GROUP LIMITED formerly known as LIONSTAR GROUP LTD v. RAKICH INVESTMENTS LTD formerly known as COMPUTER DYNAMICS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3881
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1888/2019

On the contemporaneous documents and emails and the parties' conduct the Agreement was for transfer of HSR shares; the representations that Fuku owned HSR were false; Steve and Vic knew (or were reckless) as to the falsity; Rakich relied on those representations and suffered losses and therefore validly elected rescission and is entitled to damages and repayment due under the loan note; consequently Fuku's claim is dismissed and Rakich's counterclaim succeeds with specified monetary and interest orders and costs.
1 Aug 2025

LUO PEIYU v. SHIN HO (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1286
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP6424/2024

Because the defendant failed to produce title documents and several encumbrances (undischarged February Charging Order, March Legal Charge, and June Charging Order) existed, and because the defendant breached express SPA obligations to discharge charges before completion, the court held the vendor failed to show or give good title; therefore the purchaser validly rescinded the SPA and is entitled to return of deposits and costs.
6 May 2024

TANG KWAI CHEUNG v. YEUNG SZE TING

Citation

[2024] HKCA 383
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV474/2022

On objective analysis the SPA as signed, including Clause 35(c), reflected the parties' binding agreement; there was no continuing common intention or outward expression to exclude Clause 35(c) so rectification failed; the January 2019 payment was unrelated to Clause 35(c) so no estoppel or waiver; Clause 35(c) did not require tender of deposits as a precondition to rescission and the Rescission Letter validly exercised the unilateral right; implied term to procure completion by alternative means would contradict express conditions and was refused; therefore the Recorder's decision was upheld…
17 Jan 2024

YUEN KWOK LEUNG ERIC AND ANOTHER v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MING CHOR PAO, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP262/2022

The court ordered sale because the 2019 Judgment conclusively established the plaintiffs' purchaser's lien, the Estate had not paid the sums due, no court had ordered a stay of execution pending appeal, the appellant advanced no arguable defence or triable issue, and summary disposal under Order 28 r4 was therefore appropriate; accordingly an order of sale with a 56‑day repayment window was granted and detailed sale and distribution directions were given.
12 Jan 2024

LILI HU v. NEW NORDIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 9
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ332/2022

Plaintiff failed to establish a proprietary claim against NN Hong Kong because the PPSA was between Hu and VIP (NN Hong Kong was not a contracting party), Hu had not rescinded the voidable contract nor made counter‑restitution, and there was therefore no proprietary interest or trust duty established against NN Hong Kong; consequently there was no serious issue to be tried against NN Hong Kong and the proprietary injunction was discharged and the action stayed to permit rectification if possible.
16 Aug 2021

LAI CHEUK FAI v. VARYCLEAR LTD

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 58
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE709/2021

On the balance of probabilities the applicant had represented that the listed equipment and the Premises were in a usable state for a dental clinic; that representation gave rise to an implied warranty/inducement which was breached because the X-ray apparatus was subject to abandonment/licence issues making the Premises unusable for the intended dental practice; consequently the tenant was entitled to rescind the Tenancy Agreement and the applicant's recovery of possession application was dismissed; costs were awarded to the respondent.