Abstract
The recent decision of the Hong Kong High Court (the ‘HKHC’) in Credit One Finance Limited v Yeung Kwok Chi & Others is worthy of the attention of the common law world. The HKHC followed a ‘but for’ test developed by English courts and established that reliance on receipt of enrichment is not a necessary ingredient of the change of position defence. This case not only marks itself the first Hong Kong case discussing the role of reliance in the change of position defence but also offers a comparative study of the laws of unjust enrichment in the common law world. As observed by this note, this case also reflects an underlying divergence between, on the one hand, English and Hong Kong laws of unjust enrichment and, on the other hand, the law of unjust enrichment in Australia in terms of the change of position defence. In addition to the clarification of the legal position, this case comes with practical implications for innocent defendants in receipt of benefits and serves as an important reminder to financial institutions on the importance of anti-money laundering and fraud investigations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
