Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restitution

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHEUK MAN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 349
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC67/2025

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show cogent and compelling reasons for the delay and the asserted grounds did not demonstrate that the sentencing judge erred; the judge properly applied sentencing principles in breach of trust cases, took full restitution and mitigation into account and the resultant 40‑month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
9 Jan 2026

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. WING YIP BUILDING MATERIALS & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 41
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP446/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff's sole ground (construction that payment must be made directly to the commercial department) is unarguable on the uncontested factual findings that the defendant's payment application was provided to and received by the plaintiff's commercial manager via an executive assistant (Mr KK Tam), and clause 4.1 does not prescribe the method of delivery; the application to adduce further evidence was refused because the material was available earlier and does not meet Ladd v Marshall criteria.
19 Dec 2025

LUK SIU PO v. LUK HIN LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA399/2019

Court found many substantive claims in deceit and ritual schemes were time‑barred under the Limitation Ordinance; but on facts the Plaintiff proved she transferred income and funds under the control and directions of D2 and that transfers from the Joint Account to D1 were procured by D2's undue influence so those transfers must be accounted for and returned; the Impugned Documents (Acknowledgment of Debt, Declaration of Trust and 1140 Assignment) were procured by undue influence and set aside; D1 held a resulting trust interest in the 1140 Property proportionate to proven contributions but ha…
17 Dec 2025

PANG SAI YU the manager of ‘PANG SHE YAN TSO’ v. WINNER DAY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1133
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2024

The renewed stay was refused because, on a broad‑brush assessment, the appeal did not demonstrate the very strong grounds required to justify a stay and the appellants failed to show additional good reasons (such as irreparable harm or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory); moreover only managers can authorise occupation of the Tso's land and a purported oral lease by a single manager would not bind the Tso under the unanimity principle, so permitting continued occupation would prejudice the plaintiff who had been deprived of the Lots since 2006.
7 May 2025

HO WAI KWONG (何偉光), executor of the estate of YU KING (余琼), deceased v. HO KAM CHUI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 389
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV301/2023

The court refused to vary the order nisi because the dispute below and on appeal primarily involved factual contests (gift v sale and affirmation/rescission) that necessitated trial, the defendant persisted with those factual claims and failed both at trial and on appeal, the defendant was not the successful party on appeal, and it was just to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action and 80% of the plaintiff's costs of the appeal (taxed if not agreed).
17 Apr 2025

WONG, CHI HUNG v. LO, WING PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 370
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV399/2023

When a restitutionary claim is governed by Hong Kong law, foreign illegality does not automatically defeat recovery; restitution obligations are distinct from contractual enforcement, and international comity/public policy only bar restitution where allowing recovery would clearly subvert the foreign law or where the foreign law expressly or by clear implication bars unwinding; here Mainland law did not clearly bar restitution and the transaction was aborted for reasons unrelated to the exchange, so the unjust enrichment claim succeeds and the appeal is dismissed.
11 Mar 2025

香港特別行政區訴梁智欣

Citation

[2025] HKDC 642
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC719/2024

Having regard to the facts, the limited degree of fire damage, the defendant's mental illness and mitigation (including restitution and remorse), and the psychiatric reports which did not recommend compulsory admission, the appropriate course was a reduced custodial sentence. The court adopted a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment, applied a one‑third reduction for plea, and imposed 12 months' imprisonment without a hospital order.
19 Dec 2024

FONG PING KIT v. TSANG HIN WAI, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEE CHIU TAI, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2200/2017

The judge found on balance that the core affirmations supporting the 2007 Order were dishonest: documentary and contemporaneous evidence (Rent Book, DLO letters, AFD licences, business records) established plaintiff's long open occupation and undermined the defendants' claim of continuous possession by Madam Lee and family; the Purported Lease was fabricated by D1 and not credible; service affirmations were not proven false but that did not excuse the dishonest primary case. Because the 2007 Order was obtained by fraud and the Consent Summons/payment flowed from representations based on that…
1 Nov 2024

CHOW TIMOTHY WAI KOON v. LAM YING KUEN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1835
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1669/2023

Master found Defendant breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated entrusted funds and shares; Plaintiff proved the account movements and the balance of HK$317,533.78 and established loss from Defendant's wilful failure to act on instructions amounting to HK$103,068.80 (496,000 shares x HK$0.2078). Judgment entered for Plaintiff for HK$420,602.58 with interest (HSBC best lending rate +1% from 26 April 2023 to date of Interlocutory Judgment, thereafter at judgment rate) and costs summarily assessed at HK$55,000.
29 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴楊振昇及另四人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1821
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC403/2023

The court applied established sentencing starting points for triad membership, assault and arson based on precedents; reduced each starting point by one‑third for timely guilty pleas; then applied bespoke further reductions or suspension where significant prosecutorial delay and individual mitigation justified it. As a result D2, D3 and D6 received non‑custodial suspended sentences (36 months) reflecting delay plus mitigation; D4 received immediate custody for arson and a partial consecutive term for the triad offence totalling 21 months and was ordered to pay HKD5000; D11 received an aggrega…