Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abuse of process (henderson v henderson)

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

TSOI CHUNG TAT PRINCE v. WEI ZHONGXIA

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1843/2021

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to show the PRC judgments were plainly and obviously final and conclusive because no PRC expert evidence was adduced and there was no evidence to show the likelihood of retrial under the PRC trial supervision system; the PRC judgments dealt with the nature of the RMB5,000,000 and did not decide the RMB15,000,000 claim here so issues were not identical; the Defendant's inconsistent‑cases ground was raised late and unfair; accordingly there was no abuse of process and the striking out was improper.
18 Dec 2025

YUEN TSZ CHUN FRANK and CHAN HOI YAN, the Joint and Several Liquidators of RZ3262019 LTD (in Liquidation) v. ZHOU YING INVESTMENTS GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6364
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1589/2024

Leave to appeal was refused. The judge concluded that (1) the jurisdictional question under s266 is intrinsically linked to the form of the remedy sought so there was no reasonable prospect of success on Ground 1; (2) Ground 2 (standards of proof / issue estoppel) raised arguable points but were premature at the striking out stage and it was not plain and obvious that the foreign court had decided the issues so no estoppel arose; and (3) Ground 3 failed because the judge had made an evaluative assessment of multiple factors and was not plainly wrong to find no collateral attack or Henderson a…
2 May 2025

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DICKSON CONCEPTS (RETAIL) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 721
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1660/2024

The claims as pleaded in the Draft Amended Statement of Claim were struck out: employment contract claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Tribunal and, alternatively, barred by the Henderson v Henderson abuse of process rule; the discrimination claim was brought outside the 24-month limit under DDO s82(1) and the plaintiff failed to show it was just and equitable to extend time under s82(3); the psychiatric injury claim was not a standalone cause and was barred by prior DCPI proceedings under Henderson/res judicata. The amendment and stay applications were dismissed and th…
29 Oct 2024

CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of CHING CHI SAU, deceased v. CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW in his capacity as the executor of the estate of CHING CHI SAU, deceased

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1738
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2920/2023

Appeal allowed in part: the court held that the interest loss claim is not an abuse of process and restored those parts of the Statement of Claim concerning interest loss because prior Order 85 proceedings and the High Court declaration did not preclude a separate equitable compensation claim arising before and after the declaration; however the Benevolent Fund-related pleas were struck out as barred by issue estoppel because the substantive questions relating to the Benevolent Fund had been fully litigated and determined by Wilson Chan J in HCMP 2339/2020. Limited fresh evidence (specified p…
26 Mar 2024

ACCURATE CONTRACTORS & RENOVATORS CO LTD v. MESSRS WONG & LAWYERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP66/2023

The originating summons seeking taxation of Bills 1-3 was dismissed because the claims could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings (HCMP 217/2022) and were intentionally excluded or abandoned, such that permitting taxation now would amount to an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle; the first-regime did not apply and the court refused relief under s.67(2) in the exercise of its discretion and ordered costs against the plaintiff.
5 Mar 2024

NG YIU CHI ELEANOR v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1248/2023

The originating summons was struck out as an abuse of process because the challenge to the 1997 allotment and the Restructuring could and should have been raised in the earlier trial which settled those issues; additionally the plaintiff lacked legitimate interest and locus, s.42(4) threshold for removal was not satisfied and any claim for the alleged HK$10,000 consideration belonged to HEL and was time-barred.
25 Nov 2021

LI XIAO YI AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1735
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2018

The applicants lacked the requisite legitimate interest to apply for the trustees' removal because they are strangers to the bankruptcy estate (not creditors or contributories) and their grievance — being subjects of a private examination — did not entitle them to a remedy as sweeping as removal; consequently discovery in aid of that removal application was properly dismissed and the application was an abuse of process when it sought collateral attack on an unappealed examination order.
29 Jun 2021

RE GW ELECTRONICS CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1869
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW81/2016

The 1st and 2nd Summonses are dismissed: the ORPL is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel and the Henderson v Henderson abuse doctrine from re‑litigating the amount of liquidation expenses after the Court finally determined the Stay Summons and sealed the Conditional Order; the Court was functus officio once the order was sealed and, by the time of the 2nd Summons, lacked jurisdiction as the winding up had ended; costs awarded against the Official Receiver on an indemnity basis.
24 Dec 2020

張超翰對韓欣陶

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 26
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1588/2019

Respondent has no lawful right to occupy because the agreed second lease expired on 14 November 2012; the alleged third lease was never pleaded or disclosed in prior litigation and is barred by Henderson v Henderson and, in any event, is not credible or compliant with statutory/formal requirements; prior findings that the deed of gift was forged and respondent acted dishonestly disentitle her to equitable relief; accordingly applicant's application for vacant possession is granted and respondent must deliver vacant possession and pay costs.
27 Aug 2019

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 969
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP144/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the first instance judge reasonably concluded the plaintiff's claims were not plainly and obviously liable to be struck out; the prior trial concerned Lot 78 only and references to other lots were background, the registered owners did not pursue those other plots then, there was no clear abuse of process or issue estoppel, and the high threshold for overturning such an assessment was not met; the renewed application for leave was hopeless and indemnity costs were ordered.