Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure/non‑disclosure

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2024

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 對 CHAN MAN FU

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1615
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1351/2024

The court convicted the respondent of contempt because contemporaneous signed documents (bankruptcy returns and social welfare applications) showing zero income directly contradicted the verified Statement of Damages claiming HK$45,000 monthly income; the respondent failed to adduce credible evidence or call his lawyer to support his explanation, and the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was false and made knowingly or recklessly.
5 Sept 2024

SHOWN WAI INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v. HUI YIP WING DAVID

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2339
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2959/2015

The application is allowed: indemnity costs are ordered for both the Amendment Application and the entirety of the proceedings because the Amendment Application was a late, highly disruptive interlocutory application and SW deliberately and unfairly concealed the existence and date of the Deacons Advice; SW pursued claims that were bound to fail and made serious unpleaded allegations without cogent evidence, thereby taking the conduct of the litigation out of the norm and justifying indemnity costs; costs of the summons are awarded to Hui and summarily assessed on an indemnity basis.
9 Aug 2024

WHK v. LCH

Citation

[2024] HKFC 147
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10933/2022

After identifying and valuing the matrimonial assets and disputed items the Court applied the LKD v DD framework and found no good reason to depart from equal sharing; it rejected most allegations of wanton dissipation but found the Respondent had retained HK$280,000 from multiple unexplained cash withdrawals (re‑attributed to his cash savings), valued the Wife's 45% shareholding in EBL at HK$150,000 and the contested insurance policy at account value HK$865,744; ordering sale of the principal property and equal division of net proceeds, a lump sum payment by the Respondent of HK$2,330,103 wi…
30 Jan 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING FAI BUILDING v. CHAN YUN CHOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 4
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM29/2020

The Tribunal held IO was the overall successful party on the single event (IO's claim), having obtained mandatory injunctions and effective relief on the disputed works; the general rule that costs follow the event applies subject to appropriate deduction for discrete failed issues; IO's failure on the discrete waterproofing damages claim justified depriving IO of costs attributable to that trial time (estimated 30%) but did not justify varying the costs nisi; respondents' complaints about non-disclosure, settlement offers and wasted expert costs did not establish misconduct or special circum…
28 Feb 2022

丘對張

Citation

[2022] HKFC 43
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC316/2018

Applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or special reasons to depart from the usual approach that MPS orders are interim and assessed broadly; disputed issues of income, assets and alleged nondisclosure properly await ancillary relief; therefore leave to appeal and a stay were refused and costs awarded to respondent.
24 Feb 2022

AGRITRADE RESOURCES LIMITED THROUGH THE JOINT PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS NG KIAN KIAT, OON SU SUN AND E. ALEXANDER WHITTAKER AND ANOTHER v. ASHOK KUMAR SAHOO

Citation

[2022] HKCA 280
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP224/2021

The Court refused leave to appeal because the Judge was entitled to find a good arguable case of unexplained misappropriation (US$5,060,000), clear evidence of self‑dealing in the CCDs and misapplication of US$2,450,000 in the Gupta Steel transaction, and a resulting real risk of dissipation; the alleged errors (reflective loss, fund‑flow interpretation, quantum, non‑disclosure, wife transfer, 2nd plaintiff standing) do not show a reasonable prospect of success or a basis to disturb the Judge's discretion.
11 May 2020

B N P also known as S S N v. B P

Citation

[2020] HKFC 100
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8191/2019

Applying a broad-brush assessment of the wife and children’s immediate reasonable needs, the husband’s undertakings and the evidence that family companies materially supplemented family expenditure, the court found the wife’s original budget excessive and inadequately evidenced but concluded the husband has greater capacity to pay than stated. The court therefore ordered maintenance pending suit of HK$51,000 per month to the wife, HK$40,000 per month for the two children, and monthly litigation funding of HK$55,000 to the wife’s solicitors, with undertakings to continue and costs of the appli…
25 Sept 2019

SKY MOTION HOLDINGS LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2019

On the available materials the plaintiff established a strongly good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried; evidence supported a real risk of dissipation (apparent dissipation of the very subject matter, discrepancies in asset holdings, police allegations and margin loan exposure); balance of convenience favoured preservation of the assets; the court admitted late affidavit in reply on weight grounds; varied the ceiling to HK$500,000,000; refused further fortification and held the HK$10,000,000 paid in court adequate; and ordered costs against the defendant.
14 May 2019

W, LT v. GWH

Citation

[2019] HKFC 127
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12735/2015

Applying a broad‑brush assessment and having rejected many of the wife's inflated estimates but accepting the husbands past spending and some borrowing capacity, the court ordered maintenance of HK$30,000 per month for the wife and HK$30,000 per month for the child (first payment backdated to 1 May 2019) and refused the application for litigation funding, reserving costs for later determination and directing further procedural steps.
22 Dec 2017

LSDS v. BX

Citation

LSDS v. BX
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8189/2017

On a broad‑brush assessment the court found the child's immediate and reasonable interim needs amounted to HK$89,000 per month and ordered the husband to pay that sum (back‑dated to 23 November 2016). The wife's applications for her own maintenance pending suit and for litigation funding were refused because she had sufficient resources or ability to fund her litigation and she had not satisfied the Currey criteria; the wife had also failed to make full and frank disclosure such that adverse inferences were drawn, but the child's best interests required steady interim financial support from t…