Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unconscionable contracts

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2019

TONG BO FINANCE CO LTD v. VERONICA ELLA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2933/2015

Plaintiff proved execution of compliant loan documentation and actual advance of funds; there was no credible evidence linking the independent third party (Global Property) to the plaintiff as agent or in collusion, so third‑party fees did not invalidate the loan or alter disclosed interest; therefore judgment for plaintiff for principal and contractual interest, with costs on indemnity basis.
8 Apr 2019

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. MA WAI KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 457
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3343/2016

On a provisional assessment the defendants' evidence could well be believed at trial that the loan transaction was a domestic arrangement cloaked as a PRC loan to avoid the MLO, the choice of PRC law was not bona fide, and therefore the principal loan and the indemnity may be unenforceable; accordingly the 1st Defendant established a meritorious defence and the regular judgment and charging order must be set aside and discharged and leave given to defend.
5 Jul 2013

ROBINFORD LTD 對黃金海岸鄉村俱樂部、遊艇會

Citation

ROBINFORD LTD 對黃金海岸鄉村俱樂部、遊艇會
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3536/2011

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success or any matter requiring appellate consideration; the judge properly assessed that disclosure of ancillary settlement terms did not undermine his impartiality and the consent order was entered after the applicant clearly and voluntarily agreed to its terms in open court.
2 Jul 2010

FREEWAY FINANCE CO LTD v. TAM CHUEN ON RAYMOND

Citation

FREEWAY FINANCE CO LTD v. TAM CHUEN ON RAYMOND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA61/2010

Clause 2 is an independent covenant that did not merge into the judgment; therefore the contractual rate of 48% p.a. applies to post-judgment interest. Section 49 of the High Court Ordinance does not displace such an independent covenant and there was no evidence to render the clause unconscionable under the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance.
29 Jul 2005

JAMES MANUEL HO AND ANOTHER v. GRAND PACIFIC VACATION (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

JAMES MANUEL HO AND ANOTHER v. GRAND PACIFIC VACATION (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA5/2004

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any legal error of the kind required by s.28(1)(a) Cap.338 or that the Tribunal's discretionary inquiry under s.16(3) Cap.338 or assessment of evidence produced an injustice; the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by evidence and entitled to deference and there was no sufficient explanation to admit fresh evidence, so no ground for appellate interference.
16 Apr 2003

SHUM KIT CHING v. CAESAR BEAUTY CENTRE LTD

Citation

SHUM KIT CHING v. CAESAR BEAUTY CENTRE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA38/2002

Court held clause 19 (no refund) was unenforceable as a penalty and, under section 5 of the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance, severed clause 19 and clauses 25 and 26 from the contract but otherwise enforced the contract; appeal dismissed and costs ordered against appellant.
10 Jul 2000

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE

Citation

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15044/1999

The indemnity cost provisions in the credit card agreements were unconscionable under the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance given the unequal bargaining positions, lack of notice, the extraordinarily wide uncapped scope permitting unreasonable third party and administrative charges and the context of high interest rates; accordingly the clauses were unenforceable and the plaintiffs were limited to fixed costs as provided by Order 62.
10 Jul 2000

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE

Citation

HANG SENG CREDIT CARD LTD. v. TSANG NGA LEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15043/1999

The indemnity cost provision in the credit card agreements is unconscionable under the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance given the unequal bargaining positions, lack of notice, excessively wide scope allowing recovery of indirect and unlimited charges and potential for abusive application; therefore the provision is unenforceable and the plaintiffs are limited to fixed costs; the master's order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.