Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Return of deposits

Legal area

Court

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charges before completion, the court held the vendor failed to show or give good title; therefore the purchaser validly rescinded the SPA and is entitled to return of deposits and costs.
7 Dec 2015

WEI JING v. CHEUNG PING YIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

WEI JING v. CHEUNG PING YIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3314/2014

The court refused to decide the disputed factual issues on the basis of the existing affirmation/hearsay evidence, concluded that the defendants' solicitor and accountant evidence was critical and should be given viva voce, and ordered the action to continue as if begun by writ with pleadings to be served and further directions (including costs) to be heard.
26 Jun 2015

WAN CHI HING v. WONG CHUNG KAI

Citation

WAN CHI HING v. WONG CHUNG KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1552/2013

The court rejected the existence of any overarching General Agreement and the asserted oral agreements on timing of rent and deduction of profits tax because the defendants' evidence was inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous documents, and inherently improbable; profits tax is not the type of outgoing meant to be shared or deducted monthly under the written site agreements and no express or implied contractual basis existed for the deductions; plaintiff's failure to pay his contractual share of Government rent from the specified dates evinced an intention not to perform and lawfully en…
28 Jan 2015

CHOY SON FAI AND OTHERS v. YEUNG MIU KWAN BRENDY

Citation

CHOY SON FAI AND OTHERS v. YEUNG MIU KWAN BRENDY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1972/2013

Defendant failed to show or prove a good title because it did not produce a certificate of exemption or specific Buildings Department approval for the drainage works of the Property (the communal documents produced did not show approval specific to the Property); that failure repudiated the Agreement and entitled plaintiffs to return of deposits and specified indemnities and costs.
22 Dec 2005

JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEARANCE ESTATE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEARANCE ESTATE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9036/1998

The formal lease was signed by the plaintiff in reliance on a misrepresentation by Lau (the solicitor present who also acted for the landlord) that the lease permitted sauna use; that misrepresentation induced execution and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to rescind the formal lease notwithstanding clause 5(k); accordingly the plaintiff recovered the sums paid under the formal lease ($1,353,750) with interest and the landlord's counterclaim was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

LUO PEIYU v. SHIN HO (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LTD

WEI JING v. CHEUNG PING YIN AND ANOTHER

WAN CHI HING v. WONG CHUNG KAI

CHOY SON FAI AND OTHERS v. YEUNG MIU KWAN BRENDY

JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD v. APPEARANCE ESTATE LTD AND OTHERS