Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of without prejudice communications

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

RE ROSLAND CAPITAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW199/2025

The Company failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: contemporaneous documents and post-contract conduct (payments, receipt of loan into the Company’s account and the 14 February 2025 letter) establish the Company as the counterparty to the Loan Agreement, there is no reliable evidence the Petitioner was an unlicensed moneylender, and the unpaid loan principal alone sufficed to found the petition, therefore a winding-up order was justified.
25 Feb 2011

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENT LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL

Citation

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENT LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2533/2006

On the evidence the defendant exercised control over the plaintiff's funds, made unauthorized transfers from the BLP trust account and misapplied trust monies; he was therefore accountable as trustee/fiduciary, must render a true account on a wilful default basis and pay identified misapplied funds immediately; the court ordered payment of identified sale proceeds and a formal account under Order 43 rather than awarding the full claimed equitable damages at trial.
7 Jul 2001

MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9619/2000

The ex parte Mareva injunctions were discharged because the plaintiffs breached critical undertakings (not procuring the HK$6,000,000 bank guarantee and failing to serve supporting materials promptly), made material misstatements and non-disclosures in ex parte proceedings (including incorrect assertions about an existing judgment debt and timing of resignations), and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify fresh Mareva injunctions; accordingly the interlocutory relief could not be maintained.
22 Jun 1999

RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.

Citation

RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW275/1998

The impugned passages were relevant to the Respondent's defence and not plainly and obviously irrelevant or scandalous; at the interlocutory stage the court will not excise relevant material or decide extrinsic questions of ulterior purpose; accordingly the strike-out application fails.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE ROSLAND CAPITAL GROUP LTD

LIBERTARIAN INVESTMENT LTD v. THOMAS ALEXEJ HALL

MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.