Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure/discovery

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2026

HENRY SHING HIM CHOW AND ANOTHER v. LING KAM TONG, VICTOR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP104/2025

Clause 17 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause but not absolutely determinative; because the claims against the Trustees and the stranger Chow are inextricably linked, there were sufficiently good reasons to depart from the EJC to avoid parallel proceedings and to try the whole dispute in Hong Kong; Chow is a stranger and cannot rely on Clause 17; Trustees failed to show an arguable defence on summary judgment; leave to appeal, extension of time and stay applications lacked reasonable prospects and were dismissed.
2 Feb 2026

HENRY SHING HIM CHOW AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR LING KAM TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP106/2025

Clause 17 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause as construed, but the court properly exercised its discretion to decline to give effect to the EJC because the claims against the Trustees and the stranger (Chow) were inextricably linked, multiplicity of proceedings would result, Chow cannot rely on the EJC as a stranger or constructive trustee, Hong Kong is the more appropriate forum on FNC analysis, and the Trustees failed to show an arguable defence so summary judgment and disclosure were properly granted; accordingly leave and stay applications and extension of time were dismissed and costs a…
10 Apr 2025

WONG LAM YUK v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1492
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP237/2025

Norwich Pharmacal relief was granted because the applicant established a prima facie case that the administrator had concealed or transferred estate assets, the disclosure sought was necessary and appropriately limited to documents in the banks' possession/power/custody, and the court granted leave to use disclosed documents against the administrator despite the implied undertaking.
27 Apr 2023

YEUNG WING LUN ALAN v. YEUNG CHUNG KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1648/2019

The Joinder and Amendment Summons were refused on the ground of gross delay and the resulting prejudice and likely derailing of the imminent trial and wastage of court resources; by contrast, the 2nd LOD was permitted because the documents are neutral, non-voluminous, relevant, and discovery obligations justify their inclusion despite lateness.
30 Jun 2021

LO KIN HEI CHAIRMAN OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COUNCIL v. THE SECRETARY OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT COUNCIL

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1827/2020

The court refused disclosure of GC 4/2020 and related policy documents because the judicial review challenge was a narrow allegation of failure to perform a statutory duty (circulation and recording) and those documents were not relevant to determining whether the Respondent failed to perform that duty; GC 4/2020 post-dated the decision and could not have been relied on; leave to amend Form 86 was granted excluding paragraph 44A; the remaining summonses were dismissed and costs were reserved to the substantive hearing.
31 Dec 2020

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. T.H. LEE BOOK CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCT 12
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2020

The Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Ordinance and Rules to direct simultaneous exchange of witness statements; such a direction does not breach article 11 or privileges because it does not compel incriminating testimony, respondents remain free to remain silent and unused filed statements cannot be used if the witness is not called; given the Originating Notice, disclosure practice and need for efficient case management, simultaneous exchange is appropriate in enforcement actions before the Tribunal.
2 Nov 2020

WONG HO CHING AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS ORDINANCE)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1529/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish an arguable case that the documents sought were relevant to the appeal; the Tribunal acted within its statutory powers under s6 of the Regulation and s49 of the Ordinance, provided adequate reasons, its decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the judicial review challenge was premature as the Tribunal had not finally determined the substantive appeal.
9 Apr 2020

LUEN MING SUPREME FABRICATOR CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG CHI WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 624
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2593/2017

Retrospective leave granted because the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, the supplemental documents were served well before trial and were largely public records or party communications that the defendants could not reasonably say were surprising, the documents were relevant to disputed facts and credibility, admission did not require amendment of pleadings or further witness statements, and defendants failed to demonstrate specific prejudice from admission.
15 May 2018

NICO CONSTANTIJN ANTONIUS SAMARA v. STIVE JEAN PAUL DAN also known as STEVE JEAN PAUL DAN, STIVE JEAN PAUL DAN and STEVE JEAN PAUL DAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA902/2018

The court discharged the ex parte Mareva injunction because the requirements for ex parte relief were not met (no genuine urgency or secrecy as Citibank and Gatecoin accounts were already frozen), the plaintiff failed to disclose the material fact of the Citibank freeze at the ex parte hearing constituting material non-disclosure/abuse of process, and the plaintiff failed to provide a meaningful fortified undertaking to justify regranting the injunction.
5 Jun 2017

YCM v. LJ

Citation

YCM v. LJ
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC6812/2016

The court held that the respondent succeeded on the vast majority of discovery requests, the petitioner had been uncooperative and there were no special circumstances to depart from the principle that costs follow the event; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to award the respondent full costs of the hearing on 6 March 2017, to be taxed if not agreed.