Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deceit

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

BPI TRADING (SG) PTE LTD v. BAIG MOHAMMED ADIL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1726/2025

On the material before the court the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case on the pleaded causes of action, the defendant has assets in Hong Kong and there is a real risk of dissipation tied to the alleged dishonest scheme; the balance of convenience therefore favors continuation of the Mareva injunction, and Norwich Pharmacal and banker’s books disclosure from HSBC is justified because there is cogent evidence of serious tortious conduct and disclosure is likely to yield substantial and confined benefits to the plaintiff.
18 Dec 2025

A AND ANOTHER v. C AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1148
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1200/2025

The court granted leave to appeal because the judge’s failure to give reasons for an interlocutory ex parte decision was material and prejudicial; exercising the discretion de novo the Court of Appeal concluded the plaintiffs had demonstrated a good arguable case of deceit, breach of fiduciary duty and unlawful means conspiracy and a real risk of dissipation to justify an ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction against the six defendants, but the materials did not suffice to justify proprietary injunctions or a travel prohibition; an order for delivery up, inspection, imaging and copying of spec…
23 Jul 2025

YU QUAN LI AND ANOTHER v. SUEN KIN WING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1671/2018

The defendant's admissions in the criminal Summary of Facts together with extensive documentary and WeChat evidence established deceit and unjust enrichment; the defendant was debarred from giving evidence for failing to file a court‑ordered supplemental witness statement; the illegality defence was not established on the evidence and therefore did not bar recovery; accordingly plaintiffs entitled to judgment for HK$119,000,000 plus specified interest; costs reserved.
18 Mar 2025

LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 276
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV418/2022

The appeal was allowed and the first instance order set aside because the judge erred in failing to take into account relevant evidence and contextual matters; the proposed defences, while shadowy, raised triable issues and were arguable at interlocutory stage, and the five‑month delay was not wholly inexcusable; leave to file and serve the defence out of time was granted on condition of payment of sums realized into court and the Mareva injunction remains until trial.
2 Jan 2025

晏江虎對實德貴金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2121
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1768/2020

The plaintiff failed to prove that the 5th–8th representations were false or that the 3rd defendant made them negligently or fraudulently; the Misrepresentation Ordinance s3(1) does not assist because there was no contract between plaintiff and 3rd defendant; evidence was insufficient (absence of complete trading records, market data and expert evidence); claim dismissed as against the 3rd defendant and costs awarded to him.
21 Jun 2024

PURPLE SURGICAL UK LTD v. WIN BILLION INVESTMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1643
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1600/2020

The judge found on the undisputed fund flows, documentary evidence and untruthful testimony of Mr Wu that Win Billion and Mr Wu knowingly represented they would perform the SPA and escrow instructions, induced Purple Surgical to pay the Earnest Money, and misapplied funds; deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation were established and Mr Wu, as the controlling mind of Win Billion, is personally liable; conspiracy involving Smart Up was also made out; judgment was entered for Purple Surgical for USD9,523,231.40 and existing injunctions were continued with costs ordered on an indemnity basis (cer…
15 Mar 2024

鄧偉良 v. 張本楠 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA41/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable question of law: the Deputy Adjudicator made permissible factual findings on credibility and reliance (including that the claimant did not rely on any FEHD report), applied the correct legal test for deceit requiring cogent evidence, and did not misapply law or show bias; costs were properly left as no order.
23 Jun 2023

BARCO INVESTMENTS LTD v. WONG YAN HO (also known as GEOFFREY WONG YAN HO) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1184/2022

On the evidence before the court D1's explanations were inherently implausible and contradicted by contemporaneous bank records and forged documentation; D1 knowingly participated in the fraud and must account for the entire Investment Sum (summary judgment entered against D1). D6–D8 raised a potentially arguable finders' fees defence so cannot be summarily defeated on all claims, but they became aware of the fraud on 21 August 2022 and therefore are liable in equity for any traceable proceeds of the Investment Sum remaining in their possession from that date (limited summary judgment for pro…
18 Apr 2023

CHAN SHU CHUN AND ANOTHER v. DR KUNG YAN SUM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA832/2014

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the required cogent evidential burden to prove deceit by Dr Kung; consequentially the pleaded unlawful means conspiracy was not established against all defendants; even accepting some suspicious conduct, there was insufficient proof to implicate the Foundation or the Solicitors in knowingly participating in the conspiracy; no damages awarded and costs ordered against the plaintiffs (with indemnity costs limited to abandoned COSCO claims).
24 Mar 2023

JOHN JOSEPH DORAN v. LB SHOE CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA886/2022

On the pleadings the plaintiff established deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy by the primary defendants and unjust enrichment by second‑layer recipients sufficient to merit default judgment; equitable relief including declaration of constructive trust, delivery up/transfer and tracing orders are necessary to vindicate the plaintiff's rights; compound interest was not awarded absent pleaded fiduciary duty; post-judgment freezing injunctions were extended for eight months; the Court declined to make a s25A substituted execution order at this stage.