Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Gagging order

Legal area

Court

2 Apr 2026

X v. Y COMPANY

Citation

[2026] HKDC 549
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5633/2025

Given the cogent evidence of internet fraud, the defendant's neutral stance and absence of evidence that account holders had directed account operation, the Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order limited to specified particulars and narrowly defined records, and granted ancillary gagging, anonymity and no-inspection/sealing orders while emphasising that requests to hear in private and for secrecy must follow Practice Direction 25.1 and proper interim procedure for gagging orders must ordinarily be followed.
30 Jul 2025

CHENG SIN TUNG v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1272
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2903/2025

Because there was cogent and compelling evidence that the plaintiff was defrauded of HK$46,000 into the identified Hang Seng account, and the targeted disclosure (account opening details and transactional records from 23 March 2025 to the date of the order) was necessary and not unduly wide to enable preservation or discovery of assets, a Norwich Pharmacal order was granted; a gagging order was refused as the plaintiff did not make out a strong case for that exceptional remedy.
5 Jun 2023

CHEN BEI v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 788
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1591/2023

The Norwich Pharmacal and gagging applications were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure and did not produce cogent and compelling evidence of fraud (missing chat records, inadequate particulars of alleged 'additional earnings', unexplained transfers, heavily redacted bank statements), so the threshold for granting the extraordinary relief was not met.
9 Dec 2022

P v. D1 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3644
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1085/2022

The court refused Norwich Pharmacal relief against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants because the plaintiff failed to establish that those defendants were 'caught up' or 'mixed up' in AD's alleged wilful evasion of the award: there is insufficient evidence linking the D2 Account Holder to AD; PT's trading with AD is too remote to justify disclosure; therefore disclosure orders cannot be made. The gagging order was discharged as against those defendants and costs orders nisi were made allocating indemnity costs to the plaintiff.
31 May 2022

A v. B AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 492
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP793/2022

Given cogent evidence of a premeditated fraud, the court exercised its Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction to order targeted disclosure of bank statements for specified accounts from 2 December 2020 to the date of the orders to enable tracing and commencement of proceedings, and granted ancillary relief including a 70‑day gagging order, an anonymity order and specific case management directions; costs of compliance to be borne by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
8 Apr 2021

A v. B

Citation

[2021] HKDC 413
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4191/2020

The plaintiff produced cogent evidence of deceit and forgery showing she was a victim of fraud and that the defendant bank was involved as the recipient bank of transfers; disclosure of account holders' names, addresses and current balances was necessary and proportionate to enable tracing and preservation of assets, and a gagging order was necessary to prevent the wrongdoers from being tipped off; accordingly Norwich Pharmacal relief and a gagging order were granted and the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.
16 Mar 2021

A1 AND ANOTHER v. R1 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 650
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP307/2021

The court granted Norwich Pharmacal disclosure against the three respondent banks, together with gagging, confidentiality and anonymity orders (subject to amendments), because the applicants had met the meritorious threshold for relief, the disclosure sought was appropriately limited in time and scope, and the Hong Kong incorporated banks likely had possession, custody or power to obtain documents from their Macau branches.
3 Jun 2020

MCT ENTERPRISES LTD. (a company incorporated in British Columbia, Canada) AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 396
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1274/2020

The court found the threshold for a disclosure order and a gagging order was met and granted the orders against the 1st defendant; because BOComm had not been given sufficient time to respond to the ex parte application the court limited immediate relief against BOComm to a gagging order and disclosure in respect of one specified account and adjourned the remainder; on the inter partes summons, after BOComm provided information and documents, the court granted the draft order with an amendment that there be no order as to costs of the inter partes summons including costs reserved from the ex…
20 Apr 2018

A v. P company AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 907
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP289/2018

The court granted Norwich Pharmacal disclosure and ancillary gagging and anonymisation relief because the plaintiff provided cogent evidence of impersonation fraud, the disclosure sought was specific and necessary to trace and preserve assets, other reasonable avenues had been exhausted, and there was a real risk that notifying suspected wrongdoers would frustrate recovery.
7 May 2015

ZIMMER SWEDEN AB v. KPN HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZIMMER SWEDEN AB v. KPN HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2264/2013

The court retained jurisdiction to determine the four reserved costs while the proceedings remained on foot; the reserved costs under the Directions Order are to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff forthwith to be taxed if not agreed and the Costs Order is to be amended under the slip rule to include those costs; the reserved costs of the 1st and 2nd Mareva injunctions and the gagging order are to be treated as costs in the cause; the plaintiff's summons costs are costs in the cause (nisi).