Family Court denies HK$12,000 claim over cancelled wedding banquet refund

The Family Court denied Chan Hoi-lam's claim for HK$12,000 from Leung Ka-fai over a cancelled wedding banquet deposit. It ordered no payment and made no partial award.

Chan had paid the deposit, but the venue refunded it to Leung because the booking was in his name. The separated spouses disagreed over whether she was entitled to the whole refund and whether he had promised to return it.

The deposit receipt identified Chan as the payer, while the venue's confirmation established that the HK$12,000 refund went into Leung's account. Neither document settled how the couple had treated the banquet expense or who was entitled to the refund.

The court said Chan had to prove the amount she sought. Her account that there was no agreement to divide the refund was relevant, but there was no independent evidence of the arrangement. Leung's general assertion that wedding costs were shared did not prove that this particular refund was shared either.

The WhatsApp exchange on which Chan relied was not presented. Leung acknowledged saying he would “sort it out”, but without the exchange and its context, the court could not find that he had promised to repay the full amount. It also had no reliable basis for calculating a smaller award.

The court made no finding of fraud: the record showed receipt of the refund and a dispute about the arrangement, but did not establish deception.

Chan said she paid the deposit from her own account, that the couple had not agreed to divide the refund and that Leung had promised to send it back. Her counsel argued that the receipt established her entitlement and described Leung's conduct as fraud.

Leung accepted that Chan paid the deposit and that he received the refund. He argued that wedding costs were generally shared and that his reply meant he would deal with the refund, not necessarily pay her all of it. He asked the court to deny the full claim or limit any award to what the evidence supported.

The couple shared other wedding expenses and later separated. After the banquet booking was cancelled, the venue refunded the deposit to Leung's account.

The judgment resolves the claim on the evidence presented at the hearing. It does not find that the couple agreed to share this refund or that Leung proved a right to keep it; the claim failed because the amount owed to Chan was not established.