Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conflict of interest

Legal area

Court

11 May 2026

KO YUET LUN AND OTHERS v. KAO YUEH WEN THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TSANG NGAN KIU

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2605
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP977/2023

The court refused to remove the Executrix because the principal allegations of misappropriation were abandoned or shown to be unfounded, the Executrix provided itemised accounts and bank statements sufficient for a small and simple estate, the remaining disputes were narrow and amenable to resolution in an administration action under Order 85, there was no demonstrated conflict of interest or other conduct making removal necessary, and removal would cause unnecessary delay and expense.
30 Apr 2026

LOK LAI KUEN ENDER v. LO WING KEUNG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP158/2025

The court refused to revoke the letters of administration or remove the administrator because at the date of death the Deceased held no interest in the Property by virtue of joint tenancy and right of survivorship, the HCA proceedings did not amount to material non-disclosure or misrepresentation that would have prevented the grant, there was no evidence of dishonesty or endangerment of estate assets, removal is a discretionary remedy to be exercised sparingly and the plaintiff had delayed and offered no neutral replacement.
24 Apr 2026

YAU SZE WA v. YAU MAN KON

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1112/2025

Given (1) objective and longstanding hostility that would impede cooperative co-administration and increase cost and delay; (2) the Defendant's demonstrated lack of diligence in preserving and promptly administering estate assets (notably leaving the Deceased's one-third interest in Po Yip property non-income producing for 12 years and delays in probate); and (3) the Plaintiff's suitability as majority beneficiary and capable adult, it was necessary and convenient under s.36 to pass over the Defendant and appoint the Plaintiff as sole administrator with the Will annexed.
20 Apr 2026

TREASURE SPOT FINANCE CO LTD v. HO KWAN CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2025

Leave to adduce further evidence was refused because the applicant failed all three Ladd v Marshall conditions: (1) the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence given the applicant is a qualified solicitor who should have known and raised concerns earlier; (2) the evidence was not apparently credible (bare assertions, no contemporaneous documentation, implausible timing); and (3) even if true, solicitor incompetence is a matter for negligence proceedings and unlikely to have probably influenced the outcome of a full trial, so it does not justify overturning the judgment on…
17 Apr 2026

RE HONG KONG STAR MEDIA CULTURE LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2099
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW205/2025

On a holistic evaluation of all evidence and permissible inferences the Court was satisfied the Company raised bona fide disputes on substantial ground in relation to all three Loan Agreements — namely that they were sham arrangements intended to disguise cross‑border fund flows — and accordingly the Amended Petition was dismissed and costs awarded to the Company.
10 Feb 2026

SHELEY YEUNG LAI MING ALDRED AND ANOTHER v. ELYSIUM LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 783
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP597/2024

On construction of the Trust Deed read as a whole the Appointor's powers are not beneficially owned by the Appointor; the powers are fiduciary or at least limited powers exercisable for the protection of beneficiaries as a class; given the factual matrix (Elysium under Pamela's de facto control, entrenched factional disputes and real risk of conflicted exercise) the Court must and will exercise its inherent jurisdiction to remove Elysium as Appointor and appoint neutral IFL; declaratory relief is necessary to clarify the nature of the Appointor's powers and to protect the Trust.
3 Feb 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

The court found the proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable: the judge properly applied the necessity test for appointing interim receivers; the Receivership Order validly derived from an existing Injunction Order covering the assets of the 4th defendant and Schedule 1 companies; appointment of the plaintiff's liquidators was a proper exercise of discretion; the remuneration complaint was fact‑specific and did not establish error; consequently there is no arguable appeal and the stay application must fail. Leave to appeal and stay were dismissed and costs ordered against Hui a…
21 Jan 2026

RE YUEN MAN JESSICA

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCBI396/2024

The court exercised its discretion to grant a time extension under BO s.100(4) and allowed the s.20J application because material irregularities were established: the Nominees were not impartial (long-standing commercial connections and they prepared the IVA), they failed to investigate and ignored WMS's unequivocal waiver of the alleged HK$900,000 loan, and they wrongly assessed SCB's liability as 10% contrary to the terms of Ho's guarantee (which imposed full liability). Those irregularities affected the result of the creditors' meeting; the IVA approval and the Nominees' adjudications were…
12 Nov 2025

CHEUNG TAT MING ERIC v. THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL529/2022

The Council lawfully retained power to refer under s9A and its departure from internal standard procedure was justified on the facts: the independent panel provided a fair and impartial fact-finding process, practical quorum and administrative difficulties existed, and the referral was an interim investigatory step; on balance there was no procedural unfairness or real possibility of bias such as to vitiate the Decision, and bad faith was not established. The judicial review application is dismissed.
5 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. MAK KWONG YIU, CHAN LAI YEE, WONG SHUK ON, LEE YICK MING

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 20
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2025

The Court held that the defendants' scheme to interpose Gransing as a buffer to conceal that CISL was the actual placing agent constituted dishonest means supporting conspiracy to defraud: viewed realistically the placing and sub‑placing arrangements formed composite transactions engaging the Listing Rules and/or impeded the Stock Exchange in its public supervisory duty; proof of a sham was not required and undisclosed conflicts together with deliberate concealment satisfied the dishonesty and causation elements.