Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cause of action estoppel

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

YEUNG YAT v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1570
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2003

The SPC judgment was a final and conclusive determination on the Validity Issue by a competent court; defendants are estopped from relitigating the validity of the Share Transfer Agreement in Hong Kong and the parts of the defence relying on that purported transfer are struck out and declaratory relief entered for plaintiffs; Yau's claims about beneficial ownership raised after long delay and which could and should have been raised in the Mainland proceedings amount to Henderson v Henderson abuse and are struck out/dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiffs with particulars expressed in the judgm…
22 Jul 2025

LAM HOI KIT v. LAM TIN LING LIANG KINDERGARTEN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1171
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1267/2024

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff did not challenge an alternative dispositive ground (want of jurisdiction) and, on the merits, failed to show a reasonable prospect of overturning the finding that the action constituted Henderson abuse in a road traffic context; indemnity costs were awarded as the application was unreasonable and bound to fail.
15 May 2025

FIRST LASER LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1940
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1077/2024

The court granted the defendants' anti-suit injunction because the plaintiffs' Mainland proceedings sought to relitigate the same facts and core legal issue already finally determined in the Hong Kong proceedings and amounted to an abuse of process and were barred by cause of action and issue estoppel; as a necessary consequence the s.21M Mareva application was dismissed and the interim Mareva injunction discharged.
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/2023

The Court of Appeal held there was no sufficient privity of interest between Lu and Madam Lo to sustain cause of action or issue estoppel from the 2019 Judgment; the respondents failed to establish Henderson v Henderson abuse of process or that allowing Lo’s action would be a collateral attack on the 2019 Judgment. Because the trial judge’s judgment extensively incorporated counsel’s submissions such that judicial independence was called into question, the Court exercised its duty to consider the issues afresh, allowed the appeal against the striking out orders, permitted the majority of the…
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV329/2021

The Court of Appeal held there was no sufficient privity between Lu and Madam Lo to give rise to issue or cause of action estoppel; the respondents failed to establish Henderson v Henderson abuse of process or a collateral attack such that striking out was justified; because the judge’s judgment showed excessive incorporation of counsel submissions the Court conducted a fresh, non‑deferential review, set aside the striking out orders, allowed the majority of proposed amendments (excluding an overbroad proxy pleading), and remitted the action to be assigned to another judge with costs directio…
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP137/2022

The Court of Appeal, having concluded the High Court judgment was deficient and having undertaken fresh review, held there was no sufficient privity of interest between Lu and Madam Lo to give rise to cause of action or issue estoppel; Henderson v Henderson abuse and collateral attack grounds were not made out on the facts; striking out parts of Lu’s statement of claim was unjustified; amendments should be permitted except for an oppressive, non‑particularised proxy allegation; matter remitted for reassignment and costs adjusted accordingly.
14 Dec 2022

TSANG PO HING 對黃雁蓉

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3839
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA32/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the present claim is based on the same cause of action as a prior Small Claims Tribunal claim that was finally disposed of for lack of standing, the tribunal correctly applied cause of action estoppel and case management at the first hearing, the applicant voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claim after being properly advised, and there was no arguable legal error warranting leave to appeal.
17 Sept 2021

KWOK HONG YEE JESSE t/a JESSE H.Y. KWOK & CO. v. TSO HON LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1391
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP154/2020

The Court refused leave to appeal because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the court has jurisdiction to permit alteration or a further bill in appropriate circumstances, Master rulings did not produce an estoppel because the factual ground (non‑payment of counsel) ceased to operate once fees were paid, the claim is not an abuse of process, and the defendants did not establish that the default judgment should be set aside; costs were ordered against the defendants.
1 Jun 2021

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA404/2018

The court held that paragraphs 32–100 of the Statement of Claim and the specified paragraphs directed at KS raise the same factual matrix and legal issues already decided against similar claims in Madam Lo's Actions; Lu was in privity of interest and actively involved in those proceedings and chose to stand by, so the overlapping claims are barred by res judicata and/or constitute an abuse of process (collateral challenge). Order 15 rule 14 was unnecessary to decide and does not displace common law; amendments tied to struck-out claims were disallowed while unrelated amendments were permitted…
19 Apr 2021

YEUNG WAH WAI v. LONG TEAM LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1035
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1289/2020

The summons challenging Master J Wong's strike-out order was procedurally flawed and out of time; on the merits the Court found the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the contract and deceit claims were barred by res judicata (issue and cause of action estoppel and abuse of process) and the defamation claims were insulated by absolute privilege; accordingly the summons is dismissed and the substantive claims are struck out, with costs on an indemnity basis ordered (nisi) at HKD 40,000.