Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stamp duty

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

HO KIN TAI及另一人對 COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2026] HKDC 345
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA325/2019

The applications were dismissed because appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: their reliance on s29DF was a mischaracterisation of the statutory refund procedure which requires prior full payment; the earlier decision permitting appeal without payment was a s14(1B) hardship determination and did not establish a legal basis to avoid the payment requirement; binding and persuasive authorities (including Wang Weichen and Ho Kwok Tai) support the respondent’s interpretation; no special circumstances justified a stay; costs were ordered against appellants.
30 Apr 2024

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2741/2016

The valuation date for assessing the plaintiff's loss of bargain is the Completion Date (31 May 2016); damages are the market value at that date (HK$57,621,000) less the contract price (HK$50,000,001) totalling HK$7,620,999, with pre-judgment interest at HSBC prime +1% from Completion Date; other claimed heads (increased stamp duty, increased agency commission, costs of Colliers and CBRE reports) are dismissed.
17 Nov 2023

OCI CAPITAL LTD v. LANHAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1499/2019

No binding oral agreement was proved to have been concluded on or around 30 April 2019. The negotiations were a package including both the Shares and the underlying Debt, key terms remained unresolved, contemporaneous records (emails/WeChat) and conduct pointed to intent rather than concluded contract, key witnesses who could confirm the crucial telephone conversation were not tested, and the Bought and Sold Notes were signed for commercial/internal reasons rather than as evidence of an existing binding contract; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim for specific performance or damages is dismiss…
31 Jan 2023

MA PIK YEE v. HERUKA HAYAGRIVA MAHAKALA CHU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 268
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2020

Court found on the paper materials that (1) the relationship objectively amounted to a spiritual/religious leader-follower relationship giving rise to a Class 2A presumption; (2) the transfers and payments called for explanation and were manifestly disadvantageous; (3) the defendant failed to raise a believable or sufficient rebuttal in respect of the Lease so summary judgment is justified for the Lease; and (4) in relation to the SP Agreement and Assignment the defendant's defence raised a shadowy but arguable case therefore conditional leave to defend was appropriate subject to conditions a…
12 Jul 2022

WANG FANG FANG v. CHINA ASIA GROUP (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1339/2020

The 1st Defendant raised credible triable issues—material inconsistencies, absence of negotiation, competing valuations and plausible explanations for the contemporaneous documents—such that summary judgment and interim payment were inappropriate; leave to defend was granted and the Plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.
1 Sept 2021

AMPLE SUN LTD v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA42/2013

Applying the binding authority in Nomura and the statutory scheme in s14 SDO, the court held that reducing the Collector's costs to compensate appellants for the lack of refund would amount to an impermissible award of interest; appellants failed to show conduct justifying departure from the general rule that costs follow the event and could have used s14(1A) security to protect themselves, therefore no reduction in costs was ordered.
3 Dec 2020

AU YEUNG KWAN v. LEE LAM

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2464/2014

The 11 July 2014 Agreement was a binding, enforceable contract; clause 4 must be construed by reconciliation of agreed unit prices and outstanding loans, requiring transfer of the four 13/F units and Unit A2 (1/F) at Pahsang to AYK (with any surplus repaid by AYK); LL breached the Agreement by failing to execute transfers for 2333 Limited and Comforthome by 11 November 2014; accordingly specific performance was ordered and LL's counterclaim alleging trusts, fraud and breaches by AYK and Yau was dismissed.
15 May 2020

LEUNG WAI CHEUNG v. OCTEL NETWORKS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 220
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4454/2017

The court found no concluded tenancy contract because the post-dated cheque constituted a departure from the written terms, acceptance was not communicated by the plaintiff (through his agent) and the defendants validly withdrew their conditional offer before acceptance; although the 2nd defendant had ostensible authority, no contract arose and only the stamp duty paid (HK$1,205) was recoverable from the Third Party.
19 Dec 2019

BRIGHT GOLD LTD v. MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1440
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV66/2019

The application for stay was dismissed because, although the cross-appeal raised arguable issues (agency and affirmation/rescission), the appellant failed to show the appeal would be rendered nugatory or that recovery of the HK$69.8 million was unlikely; the defendant had taken steps (redeemed mortgage) demonstrating ability to repay and gave an undertaking regarding the funds; the plaintiff delayed seeking stay and the defendant changed position in reliance; the balance of prejudice favoured refusal of stay; costs were awarded to the defendant with a gross assessment of HK$400,000.
14 Oct 2019

CHEA SHIU CHOW v. CHEUNG WAI KEUNG, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CHEUNG CHIT CHIU, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1346/2012

The TA signed by the claimant was a valid and binding periodic tenancy; plaintiff failed to demonstrate the TA was a sham or otherwise vitiated and failed to prove the requisite intention to exclude the world and the owner. The SPA did not transfer any good possessory title from Wu. Consequently adverse possession was not established; claim dismissed and defendants entitled to vacant possession, mesne profits and costs.