Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation evidence

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2025

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LUK SIN TING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1325
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1226/2025

The court granted money judgment, a possession order and an order for sale because the plaintiff complied with statutory and contractual requirements (MLO s18; valid loan and mortgage), proper service was effected, the 1st defendant was in default, the plaintiff holds the title deeds, the valuation evidence (including supplemental report) was accepted as fair, and physical partition was impracticable making sale under Partition Ordinance s6 appropriate; costs were summarily assessed and awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.
17 Apr 2025

ZHONGCAI FINANCE LTD v. NG KA WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 693
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1099/2025

The application for an immediate substantive order for sale was adjourned because the plaintiff failed to produce essential evidence (valuation report, draft order, correspondence showing the positions of the Director of Lands and the trustees) and the defendant was entitled to file affidavit evidence; however, the court accepted that s12(2) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance meant leave of a High Court Master was not required for the plaintiff to proceed.
8 Apr 2025

RE TRILLION GLORY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW399/2024

The petitions were dismissed because the Petitioner is a secured creditor whose security effectively encumbers all meaningful assets of Noble and Trillion (and thus R&F), leaving no free assets for unsecured creditors; the Petitioner therefore has no real interest in a winding‑up order and there is no utility in making such an order; furthermore, the allegations relied upon were unpleaded and any alleged causes of action are chargeable to the Security Agent or are the preserve of a liquidator and do not establish exceptional circumstances.
24 Jul 2024

RE LAU WANG CHI, BARRY

Citation

[2024] HKCA 712
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/2024

The liberty to apply permitted the court to resolve the dispute about the form of security; applying an objective reasonableness test the proposed charge over the Sea Tiger, despite some shortcomings in the valuation evidence, afforded adequate security for the HK$12,900,000 and the court therefore granted the variation to permit the Debtor to procure the charge and associated undertakings; exceptional circumstances under s98(1) were unnecessary to invoke in these circumstances.
3 May 2024

SUN’S WORKSHOP CO LTD v. LANGOLD INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA94/2022

Master held plaintiff entitled to be placed in position as if SPA performed: loss of rental income awarded despite alleged forgery because SPA sold property subject to tenancy and purchaser assumed tenancy risk; clause 21(d) imposes liability on defaulting party for stamp duty and clause 21(c) did not bar reimbursement because the statutory proviso regarding commenced proceedings applied; plaintiff’s mitigation evidence was adequate and did not preclude recovery; date of assessment for loss of bargain is date of breach (21 May 2021); specific valuation adjustment rates and factors were adopte…
23 Feb 2024

RE SILVER BASE (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW20/2023

Both the application for leave to appeal out of time and the stay application were dismissed because the Company’s delay in applying for leave was substantial and inexcusable, the Company failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits (the security/valuation point was not arguable and the principal defence was not pursued), and the balance of prejudice favoured the Petitioner and creditors so a stay was not justified.
3 Feb 2021

LAM CHOK LAI AND ANOTHER v. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF LAM CHOK WAI, A BANKRUPT

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 260
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3042/2016

The plaintiffs discharged their burden by adducing up‑to‑date independent valuations and evidence of failed marketing; the court therefore exercised jurisdiction under the Partition Ordinance to vary directions to facilitate sale, refused an extended adjournment for the 2nd Defendant absent contemporaneous evidence, permitted sale pursuant to the Tang Offer subject to limited procedural conditions, and ordered costs against the 2nd Defendant.
3 Feb 2021

LAM CHOK LAI AND ANOTHER v. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF LAM CHOK WAI, A BANKRUPT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 260
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3041/2016

The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence of up-to-date valuations and market attempts as demonstrating that the proposed reduced reserve price and the independent HK$280m offer reflected the realistic market value; accordingly the court varied the earlier sale order under the Partition Ordinance to permit sale on those terms with limited opportunity for the objector to file an expert report within seven days, and made ancillary directions and costs orders to effect an immediate sale and end the co-ownership.
21 Mar 2019

IAN HAYDN REED v. CHAN SUK FUN the administratrix of the estate of WAN LAI HA, the administratrix of the estate of CHAN SHUK CHING PINKY (Deceased)

Citation

[2019] HKDC 385
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4560/2007

The Agreement was authentic and, on the balance of evidence including contemporaneous medical notes and commercial reasonableness of the deal, the deceased had mental capacity when she signed; the defendant and administratrix prevented completion by refusing to accept the initial payment and therefore cannot rely on the buyer's failure to pay; paragraphs 4,6 and 8 must be given effect by implication so that if the seller died before the annual payments the buyer need only pay the initial HK$500,000; specific performance of the Agreement was therefore ordered and the defendant's counterclaim d…
6 Dec 2018

NEW CENTURY CREDIT SERVICES CO LTD v. LEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1515
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2610/2017

The summons was dismissed because service on the 1st defendant was not shown to be valid so the court would not make an order detrimental to him in his absence; the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under Order 31 Rule 2 to vary substantive entitlements by shifting costs solely to the 1st defendant; and the valuation evidence was insufficient to establish a market increase justifying raising the minimum sale price from HK$4,000,000 to HK$5,500,000, especially given the original order's safeguards and the repossession basis of the initial figure.