Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Full and frank disclosure

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

ROSANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2349
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1136/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to particularise grounds or demonstrate a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success; the Board had applied the correct legal tests, adequately considered Country of Origin Information and evidence, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision.
8 May 2026

LI YIDONG AND ANOTHER v. CHEN PING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2563
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2495/2024

Relief from the sanction of the unless order was granted despite significant delay because, weighing all O.2 r.5 factors, the draconian consequence of debarment and the merits of defendants' proposed defence (draft DCC not a bare denial) outweighed the prejudice to plaintiffs; accordingly default judgment was refused. The ex parte varied injunction was not discharged because no material non-disclosure was established that would have compelled discharge, but the proprietary injunction against D3-D5 was discharged given admitted zero balances.
9 Mar 2026

EASY MONEY LTD 對 YU HAU YIP

Citation

[2026] HKDC 351
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4483/2023

The court continued the amended freezing injunction because the plaintiff established a serious triable issue, the respondent holds assets in jurisdiction, and there was a real and proximate risk that the respondent and intervener would dissipate assets by effecting the Family Court transfer; the applicant's disclosure was sufficient for the injunction application and the balance of convenience favoured continuation given undertakings and available compensation; the referral to the Family Court was inappropriate at this stage.
13 Feb 2026

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MAN’S (ASIA) DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 774
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP128/2025

The court held that the Statement of Facts was sufficiently particular, any non-disclosure was not material to the grant of leave, D1 breached the demolition and vacant possession order and D2, as sole director, wilfully failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance by D1 (inadequate supervision and failure to ensure statutory approvals were obtained), and accordingly contempt was established against both D1 and D2.
5 Jan 2026

LUU THI HANG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1659
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL990/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds or make full and frank disclosure, the Board's findings were factual and free from public law error, and the two-month delay lacked any explanation thereby disentitling the applicant to an extension of time.
2 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 15
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP90/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the Court of Appeal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge exercised his discretion within permissible bounds, properly found a good arguable case based on admissible liquidators' findings, correctly excluded reliance on the CSRC decision, validly concluded urgency justified an ex parte Mareva injunction and that any non-disclosure was insubstantial or would not have led to discharge; accordingly continuation of the injunction was properly ordered.
30 Dec 2025

YAU NGAI v. ITALINA (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 77
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE936/2024

Where a defendant’s meritorious defence was disclosed on 14.2.2025 the tribunal applied the principle that costs occasioned by further resistance after disclosure should follow the event and varied the costs nisi accordingly: costs of the setting aside application incurred up to 14.2.2025 to the applicant; costs incurred on or after 15.2.2025 to the respondent; costs in the cause and issue-based deprivation of the respondent’s costs were rejected absent a significant increase in costs or special circumstances; the respondent’s assessed costs were reduced by 15% on a broad-brush set-off to ref…
15 Dec 2025

RE LU ZHONGLOU

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1119/2025

The petitioner possessed and/or should have disclosed material information about the debtor's alternative Hong Kong addresses and Australian contact details and intention to migrate; those facts were relevant to the court's weighing when granting leave to present the petition and a substituted service order. The non-disclosure was material and fatal to the leave and substituted service order; therefore the petition was irregularly presented and the bankruptcy order must be annulled under s33(1)(a).
17 Oct 2025

WANG WEIQING v. ZHUO YIHAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/2022

The proprietary injunction as to the TV6 Address was discharged because the plaintiff unjustifiably proceeded ex parte in respect of Binance and committed serious material non-disclosure (not shown to be innocent) about pre-action correspondence and the pooled-hot-wallet nature of TV6 and potential bona fide purchaser defence; the court declined to re-grant the proprietary interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff failed to justify the nondisclosure and did not demonstrate means to honour undertaking as to damages; discharge delayed 14 days to permit further steps; disclosure orders unde…
2 Oct 2025

YAU NGAI v. ITALINA (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 57
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE936/2024

Service by ordinary post to the company’s registered office was effective under s.827 Companies Ordinance and therefore the Default Judgment was regular; notwithstanding regularity, the Respondent demonstrated an arguable and potentially credible defence (landlord’s installation of a lock constituting repudiatory breach accepted by the May 2019 notice and disputed issues about capacity and vacant possession) such that the Default Judgment should be set aside; costs ordered to follow the event with a nisi costs order in favour of the Respondent.