Lord Sales, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, delivered the latest lecture in the HKU-Temple Chambers Law Lecture Series on 24 September 2026.

The Role of Equity in the Law of Contract

”, the lecture addressed the distinct moral foundations of contract law and Equity, and how the two interact. The opening remarks were delivered by Professor Hualing Fu, Dean of the HKU Faculty of Law, and 

Held at the University of Hong Kong, the event welcomed nearly 300 attendees including members of the judiciary, legal practitioners, professors, and law students. The Honourable Mr Justice Eugene Fung, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court and a former member of Temple Chambers, moderated the lecture.

We extend our sincere thanks to our co-sponsor, The University of Hong Kong, to Lord Sales and our other speakers for their contributions, and to everyone who attended and supported the event.

 [2026] HKCFI 6035, Linda Chan J gave consequential directions to implement her earlier order ([2026] HKCFI 2696) requiring the majority shareholder to buy out a minority stake at fair value. The decision addresses three issues of practical importance: when quasi-interest on the buyout price should be awarded, who bears the burden of justifying the valuation date, and the need to plead the limits of the prejudice at the liability stage.

The judgment is most significant on “quasi-interest”. The Court awarded it at 1% over prime from the valuation date, which was the date the prejudicial conduct began. Noting the tension between Le Pichon J’s decision in 

, the Court based the award here on fairness: the minority had been excluded and had received no dividends or information, while the majority kept the use of its capital. The Court also declined to follow the English decision of 

 insofar as it requires proof of causation, which it considered contrary to established authority. It further observed that awarding interest helps achieve a clean break between the parties. That makes it harder for the petitioner to bring a later unfair prejudice claim as a past member.

On the valuation date, the Court held that once unfair prejudice is established, fairness prima facie points to the date the conduct began, rather than the date of the buy-out order. It is then for the purchasing shareholder to show why a later date would be fair.

The majority argued that the prejudice was limited and easy to quantify. That was rejected because it had not been pleaded or proved at trial: the valuation stage is not the place to reopen liability. The Court also refused to adjust the value for a later paralysis of the company’s key subsidiary, which the majority attributed to the petitioner’s nominee. The paralysis came after the valuation date, and the majority had chosen to pursue that loss in separate Mainland proceedings.

, instructed by Anthony Siu & Co, appeared for the Petitioner.

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Latest guidance from the Companies Court on valuation date and quasi-interest in unfair prejudice buy-outs

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Lord Sales delivers the 2026 HKU-Temple Chambers Law Lecture

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New