Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Anonymity order

  • 29 Apr 2026

    S AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2465
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL360/2020

    Leave is granted to the 2nd applicant because it is arguable that the Board failed to give adequate and separate consideration to the infant's child-specific risks in breach of the Fabio principles, making the intended judicial review reasonably arguable; leave is refused to the 1st applicant because the Board properly assessed and rejected her claims on the merits and her challenge amounts to an impermissible attack on findings of fact without arguable legal error.

  • 2 Apr 2026

    X v. Y COMPANY

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 549
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP5633/2025

    Given the cogent evidence of internet fraud, the defendant's neutral stance and absence of evidence that account holders had directed account operation, the Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order limited to specified particulars and narrowly defined records, and granted ancillary gagging, anonymity and no-inspection/sealing orders while emphasising that requests to hear in private and for secrecy must follow Practice Direction 25.1 and proper interim procedure for gagging orders must ordinarily be followed.

  • 29 Apr 2025

    P v. D1 AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 744
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ811/2020

    On unchallenged expert psychiatric evidence that D1 is currently mentally incapacitated and cannot give instructions or conduct this litigation, and given D2 has a conflict of interest, the court must protect D1's interests by appointing the Official Solicitor as guardian ad litem, redirecting service to the Official Solicitor, vacating the immediate trial date and listing a directions hearing to determine the way forward.

  • 29 Nov 2024

    LAM HO YIN v. LI MING KEE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1927
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO5/2024

    Anonymity summons dismissed because claimant failed to discharge the burden of providing clear and cogent evidence of a psychiatric disorder or exceptional circumstances; open justice principle prevails and anonymity would prejudice respondents where substantive factual disputes exist; any derogation must be strictly necessary and was not shown.

  • 30 Apr 2024

    X v. MARIANI, STEFANO

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 636
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEO11/2023

    The Anonymity Order was set aside because the claimant failed the high duty of full, frank and accurate disclosure in the ex‑parte application; significant adverse matters (selective omission of WhatsApp content, relevant passages of the Law Firm meeting note, and the claimant's authorship of anonymous emails and related threatened defamation proceedings) were objectively material to the court's weighing exercise and would have defeated or altered the need for an ex‑parte AO; medical reports grounded in untested subjective history were given little weight at this interlocutory stage; open jus…

  • 22 Apr 2024

    吳寳寳 對 HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 613
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI3790/2023

    The anonymity applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate objective, substantiated risk warranting departure from the open justice principle: there was no evidence of threats linked to the litigation, medical and Labour Department reports did not support claimed severe psychiatric incapacity, and subjective fear of employment consequences is insufficient to justify anonymity.

  • 17 Nov 2023

    X AND ANOTHER v. Y

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2931
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA166/2023

    The court continued the anonymity order because there was a serious question to be tried that the defendant accessed confidential material from the desktop and disseminated it, and because publication of the litigation would likely produce the very publicity and harm the plaintiffs seek to prevent such that lifting anonymity would jeopardise the administration of justice; the injunction alone was insufficient to prevent that risk and the anonymity restriction was minimally necessary.

  • 3 Nov 2023

    CB v. APTHORP, BRIAN DREW

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1556
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI357/2021

    Court granted a limited anonymity order because, on the facts, the interest of the private lives of the plaintiff and the foreseeable risk of further victimisation and psychological harm to the plaintiff and her daughters justified departing from the general rule of open justice; the restriction was proportionate (limited to anonymising the plaintiff's name), the writ's prior limited public disclosure and the timing did not produce prejudice to the defendant or require trial postponement, and alternatives were insufficient to protect the plaintiff's private interests.

  • 19 Sept 2023

    LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2377
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1936/2021

    The defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing necessity for anonymity or for a gagging order because only general or remote risks of doxxing were demonstrated, none of the Concerned Officers had been shown to have been doxxed, statutory and injunctive protections exist (PDPO s64 and the Doxxing Injunction), and the officers' identities are directly relevant to testing credibility and the issues in the case; accordingly the anonymity and gagging orders were refused, the Replacement Summons dismissed as dependent on anonymity, and the defendant was ordered to file unredacted witness s…

  • 31 Jul 2023

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEE PAK NAP

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1972
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP587/2022

    Defendant committed a deliberate breach of both the Police Doxxing Injunction and the Anonymity Order but the overall gravity was relatively low given limited dissemination and defendant's cooperation, prompt admission at interview, purging of the post and good character; significant prosecutorial delay (22 months) warranted mitigation; balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the appropriate penalty was 21 days immediate imprisonment suspended for 12 months together with a contribution to costs of HK$50,000.