Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to commence committal proceedings

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

LAI CHIK KUN MICHAEL AND OTHERS v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2741/2018

Dismissal of leave applications because applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of criminal contempt: material did not supply sufficient evidence of the requisite state of mind (knowledge or lack of honest belief) of any intended respondent; ex parte proceedings do not permit drawing adverse inferences from non‑participation; admissions in the supplementary affirmation undermined the knowledge allegation; negligence or late production does not amount to criminal contempt.
10 Apr 2024

PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD v. FUNDAMENTAL GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1655/2008

Because the only asserted link between Chan and Lee and the alleged contempt was their purported directorships and there was no evidence they remained directors as of 23 July 2021, and because the matter was long delayed despite directions and was sufficiently serious to potentially warrant imprisonment, an adjournment would be fruitless and the leave application must be dismissed.
6 Dec 2022

SUN MIN AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV6/2022

Absent clear statutory or constitutional provision to the contrary, a private person need not obtain the consent of the Secretary for Justice before applying for leave under O.52 rule 2 to bring criminal contempt proceedings; the court is the proper gatekeeper via the leave requirement and Article 63 and domestic rules do not impose an SJ veto.
8 Mar 2022

LEE SHU HANG AND LI SIN MAN SELINE (AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF LEE SAI NAM, DECEASED) v. KAN LAP KEE (ALSO KNOWN AS “TERRY KAN”)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2320/2020

The filing of the 1st and 2nd Statements in the SCIA by Kan, in their terms and for their purpose, constituted substantive decisions affecting the administration of Pak Tat in liquidation and therefore fell within the ambit of §5 of the 2/11/2017 Order; Kan submitted those statements without consulting his co‑liquidator Chen or seeking court directions despite being aware of the order; the breach was intentional in the relevant sense and proved beyond reasonable doubt; Kan’s summons to discharge/set aside leave and to strike out proceedings was dismissed and liability for contempt established…
23 Apr 2021

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. ANDvANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

Citation

[2021] HKCA 574
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV625/2020

The Court refused leave to appeal and refused stays because the plaintiff's grounds were not reasonably arguable, Judge Field's findings that the Disclosure Order had not been complied with were entitled to deference, and the discretionary orders for substituted service/dispensing with personal service were properly exercised and not plainly wrong.
17 Sept 2020

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

Both summonses were dismissed because SAIF GP had locus as general partner/beneficiary, there was no material non-disclosure affecting the leave decision, the O 52 r 2 material disclosed a distinctly arguable prima facie case of contempt, and it was just to dispense with personal service and endorsement of a penal notice on the facts given Zhou's participation in proceedings and awareness of the order and consequences; substituted service was therefore valid and the leave and service orders stood.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2016

Fresh leave applications were properly treated as new leave despite reuse of case numbers; there was no material non-disclosure in ex parte fresh leave applications; the 6-month limitation in s26 Magistrates Ordinance and associated statutory sentencing limits do not analogously apply to committal for criminal contempt; no legitimate expectation arose from s23 arrests that would prevent committal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and appeals dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAI CHIK KUN MICHAEL AND OTHERS v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

PACIFIC DUNLOP GARMENTS LTD v. FUNDAMENTAL GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

SUN MIN AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG

LEE SHU HANG AND LI SIN MAN SELINE (AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF LEE SAI NAM, DECEASED) v. KAN LAP KEE (ALSO KNOWN AS “TERRY KAN”)

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. ANDvANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU v. SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN