Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confidentiality orders

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3470
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

On the materials before the Court the plaintiff established a good arguable case that the assets registered in Ms He's name are in reality owned, funded and controlled by CEO Xia, that those assets would be amenable to process enforceable against him, and that there is a real risk of dissipation; accordingly the Court exercised its Chabra jurisdiction, granted leave to join Ms He as 8th defendant, made the Chabra injunction and related orders including service out of jurisdiction and confidentiality measures.
1 Aug 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3470
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

On the materials the court was satisfied there was good reason to suppose the assets registered in the name of Ms He (the He Chabra Assets) were in reality funded, controlled and beneficially owned by CEO Xia, that those assets would likely be amenable to execution, and that there was a real risk of dissipation; confidentiality justified ex parte procedure; accordingly leave was granted to join Ms He, the Chabra injunction was granted as amended, service out was permitted and related orders were made.
25 Oct 2023

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCT 9
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2023

The Tribunal directed that liability should be determined first and penalty determination adjourned pending trial or Kam Kwong settlements; consolidation requires applications in both proceedings and demonstration that cases ought to be dealt with together; the confidentiality regime must place the burden on the party asserting confidentiality (adopting the respondents' proposed wording for non-confidential documents); and cooperation/leniency agreements and associated communications that resulted in successful cooperation are discoverable and not protected by without prejudice privilege.
31 Aug 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCT 4
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2022

The President declined to order the proposed redactions at that hearing, adjourned the confidentiality application for the Commission to provide specific evidence and/or amend the Originating Notice, waived any procedural irregularity in timing of the application, and ordered that the confidentiality ring shall include the individual respondents and the directors of corporate respondents unless the Commission adduces credible, specific evidence justifying otherwise.
7 Nov 2014

A v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

A v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL29/2014

The disciplinary proceedings are civil/regulatory in nature; the correct test for an application to stay such proceedings pending criminal trial is the common law 'balance of justice' test, not the proportionality test for direct abrogation of rights; applicants bore the burden of proving a real risk of prejudice and failed to adduce evidence of such risk; the Chairperson did not err in refusing the stay and her decision was not unreasonable.
7 Nov 2014

B v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

B v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL31/2014

The disciplinary proceedings before the Takeovers and Mergers Panel are civil/regulatory in nature; the correct test for stay is the common law 'balance of justice' test; applicants failed to adduce evidence of a real risk of prejudice to their criminal trials and the Chairperson's safeguards and procedural choices were lawful and not unreasonable, therefore the chairperson's refusal to stay was upheld and the judicial review dismissed.
21 Jul 2014

THE JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS OF A COMPANY v. B AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS OF A COMPANY v. B AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP902/2014

The High Court held that Hong Kong recognises the authority of liquidators validly appointed in the place of incorporation and that, at common law, the Companies Court has power to grant assistance to foreign liquidators from similar common law jurisdictions on a letter of request and to make orders analogous to those available to local liquidators (including orders for production of documents); accordingly the applications for confidentiality, recognition and production orders were granted.
6 Mar 2014

RE GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD

Citation

RE GLOBAL HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW356/2011

The court granted the liquidators' application: it sanctioned the affiliate agreements and authorised entry into a materially equivalent Polaris agreement; it vested the liquidators with final determination of qualifying clients' entitlements, allocated unallocated balances to the client money pool, authorised conversion of foreign currency client money to HKD, approved a further interim distribution not exceeding HK$110,000,000 to qualifying clients on a pari passu basis, authorised costs of administration and this application to be paid from client money prior to final distribution, ordered…
2 Oct 2007

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JAMES HENRY TING

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. JAMES HENRY TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV332/2007

The Court refused the stay because, after forming a preliminary view, the appeal lacked sufficient prospects of success to justify a stay; there is strong public interest in concluding long‑running investigations (seven years since liquidation) and the judge's confidentiality and use restrictions on release of transcripts to the Department of Justice/Commercial Crimes Bureau adequately protect against prejudice to the appellant, so a stay would be inappropriate.
2 Jun 1988

GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD v. CLYDE & CO (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD v. CLYDE & CO (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2110/1987

The ex parte order to mark the court file confidential did not amount to an express prohibition on publication; the 17 August 1987 letter was temperate, addressed to intended clients about proposed future actions unconnected with the issues in M.P. No.351, and did not interfere with the administration of justice; consequently the applicant failed to prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and the committal motion was dismissed.