Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insider dealing

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. SADLER SIMON PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 720
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC731/2024

The court held that under Hong Kong law the prosecution's disclosure duty is limited to materials in its possession or control (extendable to other public bodies where appropriate), and that on the objective dominant purpose analysis the Freshfields Report, associated interview notes and related communications were not created for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice or litigation advice but were part of a self-report/compliance process under Code 12.5; accordingly MLFE's claim of legal professional privilege and its collateral waiver argument failed and all contested materials in C…
22 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. SADLER SIMON PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 721
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC731/2024

The application was refused because the applicant failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the norm of in‑court testimony: the witness's claimed farming and caregiving difficulties were not proven with sufficient diligence or evidence, alternatives (such as finding a sitter or other arrangements) were not shown to be impracticable, and the prosecution could not demonstrate that the proposed remote measures sufficiently preserved the solemnity and confrontation rights in this important and contested criminal trial.
24 Feb 2022

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LU RUIFENG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2022

The Court held that (1) the Judge’s order allowing the new claim determined in a summary way the substantive rights of China United and therefore fell within Order 59 r21(1)(a) so that leave to appeal was not required; and (2) on the merits the Commission failed to show China United had no reasonably arguable limitation defence because, to the extent the claim seeks monetary compensation for certain categories of purchasers, it is reasonably arguable that the claim is an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of the SFO and therefore may attract the 6-year limitation in s4(1)(d) LO; ac…
14 Feb 2022

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YIK FONG FONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 450
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2524/2016

The court held that the SFC's s.213 claim based on insider dealing is civil/statutory tortious in nature for service out and that its wide remedial powers under s.213 permit a restorative disgorgement order. The court ordered that HK$13,139,875 paid into court by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, less HK$190,000 for administrators' remuneration and expenses, resulting in Net Funds of HK$12,949,875, be paid to appointed administrators (Ernst & Young representatives) to distribute pro rata to the 63 counterparties by reference to the number of shares each sold (share-based pro rata calculation), and…
12 Nov 2021

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YIU HOI YING CHARLES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 41
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2018

The Registrar held that the taxing master does have the power to apportion a costs order that is silent on apportionment but the established starting point is that liability will be joint and several where parties ran a common case; applying those principles, costs relating to the Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal (and leave stages) are joint and several as the respondents ran the same legal case, whereas MMT inquiry costs contain common items and some items that properly require apportionment; R1's application to amend to achieve a 50/50 split was refused except to permit limited app…
21 Sept 2021

CHINA FORESTRY HOLDINGS CO LTD (in official liquidation) v. TOP WISDOM OVERSEAS HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1089/2016

The application to strike out was dismissed: in light of FHR and authorities the plaintiff's proprietary claim over the proceeds of the director's sale of shares was at least arguable and not plainly unsustainable; Sinclair does not conclusively preclude such a proprietary remedy and alleged regulatory remedies under the SFO are irrelevant to the strike-out threshold.
14 Aug 2020

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. "C" AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1806
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP727/2008

China United was joined as the 6th Defendant under the Chabra jurisdiction because it was a necessary and relevant party given evidence of Lu's control and the disputed factual issues; the court allowed amendments to plead a s213(2)(b) SFO claim because relief under s213 is restorative and substantive (not merely recovery of a sum) so the 12‑year limitation period under s4(3) LO applies and the proposed amendments were not statute‑barred.
26 Mar 2020

CHINA FORESTRY HOLDINGS CO LTD (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) v. TOP WISDOM OVERSEAS HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1089/2016

The defendants' application for a stay was refused because there is no identity of parties between the MMT proceedings and the present action, any MMT determination would not be binding on the plaintiff/liquidators, ss281(7)-(8) permit admissibility of MMT determinations only in actions brought under s281(1) and not in this non‑s281 action, the issues and applicable legal tests differ materially, and a stay would cause prejudice without sufficient saving of costs or court resources.
30 Apr 2019

CHENG CHAK NGOK v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 17
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV125/2018

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had correctly identified the real issue — that the Tribunal had applied a criminal standard rather than the civil balance of probabilities — there was no unresolved question of law requiring determination by the Court of Final Appeal, and the remitter to a differently constituted Tribunal was appropriate as the Court of Appeal's judgment will not preclude a fair rehearing.
31 Oct 2018

LEE KWOK WA AND OTHERS v. THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 45
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2018

Section 300 must be construed broadly: 'transaction' can cover a series of interrelated acts and an overall scheme; a defendant need not be a direct party to the counterparty transaction for liability under s300 where the fraudulent or deceptive device, scheme or course of business is employed in relation to that transaction; s300 therefore covers schemes involving misuse of inside information and can apply to securities not listed in Hong Kong where substantial activities constituting the offence occurred in Hong Kong; however where conduct plainly falls within the specific insider dealing r…