The District Court has dismissed or struck out a claim by Hu Shu-ling over HK$900,000 in alleged government and private disaster assistance, finding that she had not provided sufficient factual or documentary support. Hu was ordered to pay the legal costs of Kwok Ka-wo, with both parties representing themselves in the proceedings.

Hu alleged that she and Kwok, who had previously been in a romantic relationship before falling out, agreed that she could seek disaster assistance in his name. She said he promised to give her the full amount if the applications succeeded, so that she could use it as a down payment on a property. Hu put the total assistance at HK$900,000, according to the reports.

Kwok denied Hu’s account and described it as fabricated, the reports said. He also accused her of harassing him and said the case had affected his ability to participate in a government rehousing or property-exchange scheme linked to the Wang Fuk Court property.

The court found that Hu could not explain when, where or in what form the alleged agreement had been made. It also found that she had produced no documents showing that she had raised funds in Kwok’s name.

The court also considered WhatsApp messages in which Hu wrote that everything she obtained should be given to her. Kwok replied that he had received the money and could give it to her. Ming Pao reported that the court found this reply did not clearly amount to a promise to transfer all the funds to Hu.

Kwok and his father bought the Tai Po Wang Fuk Court, Hong Dao Court property as joint owners in 1983. After his father died in 1995, Kwok became the sole owner, according to the reports. The dispute arose after the Wang Fuk Court fire and amid a government arrangement allowing owners to sell their interests back to the government or take part in a scheme to select subsidised housing.

Ming Pao reported that the court regarded Hu’s case as lacking factual support and described it as trivial, frivolous and an abuse of court process. The reports differ in their procedural wording and do not give a consistent exact date for the judgment, but agree on the practical outcome: Hu’s claim failed and she must pay Kwok’s costs.