Xue Boran & Yang Lixuan v Hui Chi Sum & Yuen Sze Man

[2026] HKCA 247, the Court of Appeal dismissed the respective appeals of the 1

 defendants (D1 and D2) against the Judgment of DHCJ Winnie Tsui (as she then was) in [2024] HKCFI 349, whereby the Judge awarded ~HK$19 million together with interests and costs in favour of the plaintiffs under a loan agreement. There was first an oral agreement concluded between the parties (Oral Loan Agreement), which was varied and acknowledged in writing by a loan note signed by the 1

 defendant (Loan Note), and further varied and acknowledged in writing by a loan agreement signed by both defendants (Loan Agreement).

Giving the judgment of the Court, Hon Cheung JA held on the question of consideration for the Loan Agreement that the requirement of consideration may be satisfied where the promisee does something at the promissor’s request, but confers no corresponding benefit on the promisor. Here, there was consideration moving from the plaintiffs (as promisee) by their forbearance sue for the D1’s failure to repay under the Loan Note; and by their forbearance sue for the defendants’ failure to pay under the Oral Loan Agreement. It follows that D2’s second ground of appeal, based on the plaintiffs’ lack of pleading of the 1

 defendant’s authority to enter into the Oral Loan Agreement as D2’s agent is academic and does not arise.

, instructed by Robinsons, Lawyers, acted for the 1

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Court of Appeal on requirement of consideration for loan recovery agreement

Recent Judgments

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New