TANG SIU MING v. YANG XUEMEI

DCCJ 4087/2022

[2026] HKDC 477

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4087 OF 2022

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

JUDGMENT

------------------------------

Introduction

1.  This is a money dispute between two former lovers.

2.  The crux of the matter is whether the moneys were in the nature of personal loans after their relationship ended or gifts and financial support extended by the plaintiff to the defendant out of love and affection.

3.  At the trial, the plaintiff was acting in person. As the plaintiff is conversant with English, this judgment is written in English.

The plaintiff’s case

4.  The plaintiff’s case is simple.

5.  The defendant used to be the girlfriend of the plaintiff. Their relationship ended in 2017. Between August 2019 and October 2020, the plaintiff lent a total sum of HK$735,000 and RMB¥260,000 to the defendant. The defendant agreed to repay all outstanding loan by the end of 2021 which she had failed to do so.

The defendant’s case

6.  The defendant said that she and the plaintiff was in a long-term intimate relationship between late 2008 and February 2022. During the period, the plaintiff had been making irregular payments to the defendant out of love and affection and not as loan.

7.  The defendant further said that after the break-up of the relationship, she did borrow RMB¥50,000 from the plaintiff which was subsequently repaid in July 2022.

8.  In relation to the payments listed out by the plaintiff in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, the defendant said that payment Nos 1-9, 11-13 and 15 were paid out of love and affection, No 10 was a gift to reimburse her loss in the stock market and No 14 was volunteered by the plaintiff to ease her financial burden in purchasing a landed property in Hong Kong.

Whether plaintiff advanced the moneys to the defendant by way of loans

9.  The plaintiff said he was and still is a 50% shareholder and sole director of Ching Ah (China) Printing Company Limited carrying on a printing business.

10.  In 2008, the business was expanded to China. While on a business trip in China, the plaintiff became acquainted to the defendant through the introduction of friends. They started a close relationship a few months later. The two of them did not live together as they were both married. It is the plaintiff’s case that the relationship ended in 2017.

11.  The plaintiff said that he did not provide financial support or maintenance to the defendant. He did, however, give pocket money or gifts of no more that RMB¥10,000 in value to the defendant.

12.  In 2010 or 2011, the defendant moved to Hong Kong in reunion with her husband.

13.  In around 2017, their relationship came to an end. Thereafter, the plaintiff seldom had social gathering with the defendant. Although they still maintained communication through WeChat, the plaintiff did not give any pocket money or gift to the defendant anymore. The plaintiff said he never provided financial maintenance or support to the defendant.

14.  The plaintiff said that he did pay for the medical expenses of the defendant’s father of less than RMB¥10,000 during their relationship. However, he had no knowledge of the defendant’s alleged pregnancy or abortion.

15.  In around April 2020, at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff did provide financial assistance to the defendant in the purchase of a landed property under the Home Ownership Scheme by way of loan.

16.  The plaintiff said that the defendant owned a property in Shenzhen and 2 properties in Hui Zhou. The loans were made to the defendant as she promised to repay the same within 1 year from the selling of one of her properties in Hui Zhou.

17.  In early 2022 when the plaintiff demanded repayment of the loans, the defendant requested for a new loan of HK$200,000. The defendant expressed that this was really a loan merely with the intention of salvaging his trust with her and the new loan was required by her for payment ancillary to the sale of her property in China. The plaintiff did lend the defendant the said loan which was repaid subsequently. Thereafter, however, his communication with the defendant through WeChat was blocked by the defendant.

18.  The defendant said she was a masseur of a spa in Shenzhen when she came to know the plaintiff in June 2008, who was one of her clients. Half year later, they became lovers. The relationship ended in about February 2022.

19.  They had had intimate relationship. The plaintiff would give the defendant small presents and living expenses from time to time.

20.  By the end of 2011, the defendant was pregnant. The plaintiff however insisted that the defendant should go for an abortion. The defendant was disappointed with the plaintiff’s decision. Nevertheless, she maintained the relationship with the plaintiff because he gave her living expenses more frequently after the abortion and she needed the money.

21.  The defendant moved to Hong Kong in August 2015 and continued to work as a masseur in a spa in Tsuen Wan and later in Tsim Sha Tsui East.

22.  Since then, the plaintiff met her very often and took her to the hotels in Kowloon Tong for sex after work. He would give her money as living expenses out of his volition.

23.  Their relationship was discovered by her husband. Her husband wanted to divorce her in 2018 which she agreed. A decree absolute was subsequently granted in June 2019.

24.  After the divorce, the defendant wanted the plaintiff to divorce too and marry her, or to maintain their relationship and to support her living, or to stop the relationship. The plaintiff told her to ask his wife for her agreement. However, he did not give her the telephone number of his wife. She was very disappointed with the plaintiff and decided to sever the relationship with him.

25.  In the beginning of 2019, she tried to avoid the plaintiff by changing job and telephone number. The plaintiff however located her place of work eventually and wanted to maintain the relationship with her. The attitude of the plaintiff had changed and gave her moneys for various reasons, including HK$100,000 on 2 August 2019 to cover her loss in the stock market; HK$35,000 on 30 September 2019 and HK$150,000 on 14 November 2019. The defendant was touched by the plaintiff and resumed their relationship as lovers.

26.  In July 2020, the defendant bought a Home Ownership Scheme property known as 3402, 34^th Floor, Block H, Shing Him House, Tin Shing Court, Yuen Long at the price of HK$5,350,000. Out of the HK$800,000 she spent on downpayment, renovation and removal, HK$100,000 was from a Mr Chan’s contribution who was a client in the spa she worked; HK$100,000 was borrowings from friends and HK$250,000 was offered by the plaintiff voluntarily which was paid into her account on 17 April 2020.

27.  In 2020, the defendant’s father fell ill seriously and she stopped working because of that. The plaintiff promised to bear all of the defendant’s living expenses including mortgage payment while she was not working. However, the plaintiff only paid her HK$150,000 on 25 September 2020 into her HSBC account and several tens of thousand RMB into her Ping An Bank account but failed to pay her mortgage instalments. As the plaintiff paid for the funeral expenses of her father, the defendant continued the relationship with the plaintiff.

28.  As the plaintiff repeatedly stalked her, quarrelled with and even assaulted her when she had dinners with clients and colleagues, the defendant decided to end the relationship in February 2022.

29.  After the breakup, the defendant had borrowed RMB¥50,000 from the plaintiff, which was repaid to him in July 2022 in full.

30.  The plaintiff invited the defendant to have dinner on 15 June 2022 celebrating his birthday. After the dinner, the plaintiff attempted to have sexual intercourse with her in his car. She resisted but was assaulted by the plaintiff for a duration of 15 minutes before successfully escaped.

31.  She was of the view that the plaintiff had serious mental problem and feared for her life. She messaged the plaintiff asking him to consult a doctor if he wanted to maintain their friendship.

32.  The plaintiff responded by giving her 3 options, namely, (a) repaying all money to him and ending their relationship; (b) maintaining pure sexual relationship with him, he would pay her each time or (c) maintaining relationship with him as lovers.

33.  In July 2022, she quitted her job so that the plaintiff would not be able to find her.

34.  According to the plaintiff, his relationship with the defendant came to an end in 2017. He provided no reason for the break up.

35.  On the other hand, the defendant said that their relationship ended because she could no longer tolerate the possessive behaviour of the plaintiff and decided to cut off the link with the plaintiff in mid 2022. Prior to that, although she was disappointed by the plaintiff’s behaviour, she maintained the relationship with him because of his financial provision.

36.  In my view, the manner in which the plaintiff advanced money to the defendant after the plaintiff’s alleged break up is illuminating. Between 26 July 2019 and 30 October 2020, the plaintiff had advanced money to the defendant 15 times ranging from RMB¥10,000 to HK$250,000. For the months of August, September and November 2019; March and September 2020, there were two to three advancements in a single month. It would seem to be extraordinary and excessive if those advancements were by way of loan. No reasonable person would lend money to a borrower repeatedly who made no attempt to repay.

37.  To my mind, the advancements were unlikely made to the defendant as loans. There is a total lack of proof of the loans, be it in writing or through the communication between the plaintiff and the defendant in WeChat or other social media. Further, the plaintiff has failed to state the reasons for the advancements of money to the defendant, which must be present if it was the defendant who asked for money from him in the first place. By contrast, in the WeChat communication between the plaintiff and the defendant on 9 February 2022, the defendant did tell the plaintiff that she wanted to borrow RMB¥100,000 because she needed the money in China.

38.  On the other hand, the manner of payment of money to the defendant aforesaid sits well with the case of the defendant. She said after her divorce in 2019, her wish to marry the plaintiff was not responded to by him favourably. She therefore wanted to end the relationship. The plaintiff, however, located her, changed his attitude and gave her money in an attempt to salvage their relationship. It seems to me that explains why the plaintiff made payments of money to the defendant so frequently and repeatedly in 2019 and 2020.

39.  The defendant also gave the reasons for the various sums of money the plaintiff gave her which are the subject matters of the plaintiff’s claim. I see nothing incredible or inherently improbable in any of those reasons.

40.  On balance of probabilities, I prefer the defendant’s evidence than those of the plaintiff. I find as a fact that the various sums of money the plaintiff is claiming in this action were paid by him voluntarily as gifts and not by way of loans.

41.  By reasons of my findings aforesaid, the plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed.

Costs

42.  Costs to follow the event. I make a costs order nisi that the plaintiff shall pay the defendant the costs of this action with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

43.  In the absence of any application for variation by summons within 14 days from the date of this Judgment, the costs order nisi shall become absolute.

44.  Before the pre-trial review, the defendant was on legal aid. The defendant’s own costs before the pre-trial review shall be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.