A group of 14 food safety officers have initiated legal action against a colleague in the High Court to recover nearly HK$29 million, claiming he wrongfully kept their shared Mark Six jackpot winnings.
The lawsuit was initiated by plaintiffs Pau Chung-on, Au Wai-ha, Andrew Chan Yiu-wa, Ric Yan Ka-kit, Gavin Yeung Wing-chi, Tsang Hing-tung, Chan Chi-kin, Lam Tat-chi, Kwok Pui-lai, Pang Wing-kwong, Fung Tsz-him, Luk Cheuk-yi, Tang Lai-tak, and Ma Chi-wang against their fellow civil servant, Ling Chun-ting.
Syndicate formed to foster workplace morale
The dispute centers on staff members within the Market Revitalisation Section of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. In late April 2026, when Pau proposed establishing an informal Mark Six lottery pool intended to promote camaraderie among colleagues. By early May, participating staff agreed to pool their money under a collective understanding that members would choose numbers together and divide any prizes in proportion to their individual stakes.
Ling volunteered to purchase the tickets and act as a trustee holding the ticket benefits, receiving contributions via Faster Payment System, PayMe, or cash.
An initial HK$1,430 investment on May 2 yielded a minor prize of HK$1,760, which the group collectively agreed to roll over into future draws rather than cash out.
Following several winless draws and internal staff rotations, the syndicate was renewed in early September for draw number 26/ANN 096, ultimately comprising Ling and the 14 plaintiffs.
Escalation after HK$33 million grand prize draw
Court filings state that on or around September 2, the 15 participants agreed to pool HK$1,650 for the upcoming draw, with individual contributions ranging from HK$20 to HK$300, while Ling purportedly put in HK$210.
Ling subsequently bought two tickets using the pooled funds and shared screenshots of the purchasing records in a workplace WhatsApp group chat prior to the draw on September 5.
The tickets went on to secure a windfall of approximately HK$33.12 million. Under their agreed proportional stakes, the 14 plaintiffs claimed they were collectively entitled to HK$28.91 million, while Ling’s individual share amounted to roughly HK$4.21 million.
Tensions erupted shortly after the results were declared. The plaintiffs alleged that Ling promptly deleted the purchase screenshots from the messaging platform and asserted to colleagues that they had no proof of the numbers selected. He reportedly claimed that he was under no obligation to distribute the money and was only offering a fraction out of personal goodwill, while also alleging without evidence that the total purchase amount had been HK$2,000 before taking sudden leave.
High Court remedies sought for breach of trust
After Ling failed to respond to a formal legal demand letter sent on September 8, the plaintiffs filed their High Court action citing breach of agreement, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs are urging the court to issue declarations confirming their rightful ownership of the contested funds, an injunction restraining Ling from disposing of or transferring the money, an order compelling the disclosure of all purchase records, and a formal accounting requiring the return of the outstanding HK$28.91 million.
