Food safety officers sue colleague over HK$29m lottery dispute
Fourteen food safety officers have taken a colleague to the High Court, claiming he wrongfully kept nearly HK$29 million from a shared Mark Six jackpot. The group had formed a lottery syndicate to boost morale, but tensions erupted after a HK$33.12 million win.
A group of 14 food safety officers have launched a High Court lawsuit against a colleague, Ling Chun-ting, seeking to recover nearly HK$29 million from a Mark Six lottery jackpot they claim he wrongfully kept.
The plaintiffs, all civil servants in the Market Revitalisation Section of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, allege that the dispute stems from an informal lottery pool established in late April 2026 to promote workplace camaraderie. According to court filings, the syndicate was formed when Pau Chung-on proposed pooling money for Mark Six tickets, with members agreeing to choose numbers collectively and divide any prizes proportionally to their individual stakes.
Ling volunteered to purchase the tickets and act as trustee. An initial HK$1,430 investment on 2 May yielded a HK$1,760 prize, which the group rolled over into future draws. After several winless draws and staff rotations, the syndicate was renewed in early September for draw number 26/ANN 096, ultimately comprising Ling and the 14 plaintiffs.
Court documents state that on or around 2 September, the 15 participants agreed to pool HK$1,650 for the upcoming draw, with individual contributions ranging from HK$20 to HK$300. Ling purportedly contributed HK$210. He bought two tickets with the pooled funds and shared screenshots of the purchase records in a workplace WhatsApp group chat before the draw on 5 September.
The tickets won approximately HK$33.12 million. Under the proportional stakes, the plaintiffs claim they were collectively entitled to HK$28.91 million, while Ling's share was about HK$4.21 million. The plaintiffs allege that Ling deleted the purchase screenshots from the messaging platform after the results were declared and told colleagues they had no proof of the numbers selected. He reportedly claimed no obligation to distribute the money, offering only a fraction out of goodwill, and allegedly said the total purchase amount had been HK$2,000 before taking sudden leave.
After Ling failed to respond to a formal legal demand letter sent on 8 September, the plaintiffs filed their High Court action citing breach of agreement, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment. They are seeking declarations confirming their ownership of the funds, an injunction restraining Ling from disposing of the money, an order for disclosure of all purchase records, and the return of the outstanding HK$28.91 million.
