Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unconscionability

Legal area

Court

19 May 2026

BEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN, JOHNSON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1149/2024

Because the case raises substantial contested factual issues central to the characterisation of the transaction (advancement v loan) and because the substantive action (HCA) will subsume issues and include additional parties and fiduciary claims, summary judgment in the HCMP by originating summons is inappropriate; the court therefore refused Best Plan's stay and ordered the HCMP stayed pending progress of the HCA, issuing case management directions to proceed with the HCA.
10 Apr 2026

ZHANG XIAOCHEN v. PC SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1975
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1160/2021

The court found the written contracts and surrounding warnings established an execution-only relationship and contractual estoppel, the plaintiff was a professional investor who made independent investment choices, and there was no sufficient evidence that the defendant assumed advisory duties or made negligent/reckless misrepresentations that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon; accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed and was dismissed.
26 May 2025

TAM YIN LING LEWINA v. TAM CHI HUNG ALAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 885
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1062/2020

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff was the sole beneficial owner and a common intention constructive trust arose: the plaintiff provided the bulk of purchase funding (including a $1,500,000 realisation of her FS Gdn share), paid loans, expenses and managed the property; the defendant was passive, held legal title only and it would be unconscionable for him to deny the plaintiff's beneficial interest. Defendant's counterclaim failed.
7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2531/2017

The defendants' application to enforce the Schedule succeeded because the plaintiff failed to prove duress or undue influence sufficient to vitiate consent, there was no evidence the defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge of any improper pressure, the plaintiff had time and opportunity to reflect and retract and improvidence of the bargain alone does not justify setting aside a freely entered settlement.
7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2531/2017

Mr Ng failed to establish duress, undue influence or any vitiating factor sufficient to vitiate his consent; there was no evidence the Defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge of any undue influence by Mr Ng's lawyers; Mr Ng had opportunity to reflect and affirmed the settlement; therefore the Schedule is a binding contract and the Defendants' application to enforce it must be granted (with the completion date varied).
7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1682/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove duress, undue influence or any vitiating factor traceable to the defendants; his complaints were directed at his own lawyers and there was no evidence defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge; plaintiff had opportunity to reflect and affirmed the settlement; mere hardship or an improvident bargain does not void a freely made settlement; therefore the Schedule to the Tomlin Order is enforceable and the defendants' application to enforce succeeds (with a modified completion date).
19 Apr 2024

RE WONG KUI SHING DANNY

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7645/2023

The Debtor did not adduce sufficiently precise or contemporaneous evidence to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; the written loan agreements and repayment history establish the Debt and non‑compliance with the statutory demand, so a bankruptcy order was properly made under s.6A(1)(a).
20 Jun 2023

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LOK SHEK HUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 776
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP427/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success on his pleaded grounds: the FCA rules did not apply to the Hong Kong bank; the Judge correctly applied UCO s.6 and found no bona fide defence; allegations under the Code and SSO lacked evidential foundation; and public policy did not provide a basis to permit the appeal.
18 Nov 2022

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LOK SHEK HUNG

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1334
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1903/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the Defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any novel legal question; the pleaded defences were unarguable on the evidence, the debt and calculations were admitted or uncontested, FCA rules did not bind the Hong Kong bank, and no meritorious defence to justify setting aside the default judgment was shown.
9 Jun 2022

CHING KA CHUN v. Y STATION CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 679
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5699/2021

On the uncontradicted pleaded facts the court found the agreements were induced by coercion and aggressive, unconscionable conduct directed at a vulnerable person; service was regular and the defendant defaulted; accordingly the agreements were set aside, the defendant was ordered to refund HK$150,688 with interest at judgment rate from the date of order until payment, and to pay costs summarily assessed at HK$55,755.30.