Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to commence proceedings

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

DIMENSIONAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. ARCHID GARMENT FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP939/2025

Although some pleaded claims presented a serious question to be tried in a narrow legal sense, the court refused leave because the proposed litigation was not in the Company’s interests: pursuing the misappropriation and mortgage claims risked commercial harm given the possibility that the Company is beneficial owner of the disputed properties and therefore better off if litigation is not pursued; the Cambodian Property issue was resolved by respondents’ undertaking to sell; the continued employment claim rests on commercial judgment and lacked a properly pleaded serious issue; and the select…
18 Dec 2025

MISS YUEN OI YEE LISA v. BEST SPIRITS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2144
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5723/2016

The proposed joinder was refused and the action dismissed because the allegations against the proposed defendants did not relate to the contravention permitting a s66 PDPO claim, the claim was identical to previously struck out proceedings and therefore fell within the scope of the later RPO and amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly leave was refused and the proceeding dismissed.
19 Aug 2025

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DICKSON CONCEPTS (RETAIL) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1399
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1660/2024

The court found the plaintiff exhibits the characteristics of a vexatious litigant, has repeatedly re-litigated and abused court processes despite strike out orders and dismissal of appeal, and poses a real risk of continuing abuse; accordingly an RPO was necessary and proportionate to prohibit the plaintiff from commencing any fresh District Court proceedings relating to or touching upon the prior matters without leave, and the defendant was awarded costs to be summarily assessed.
23 Feb 2023

TRAN SAU LENH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 479
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL699/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision. A Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant habitually and persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process, warranting an RPO under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
28 Sept 2022

CHAN CHI CHUNG v. JACKY FUNG CHI CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1043/2022

On the face of the statement of claim the statutory criteria under ss 732-733 are satisfied: the plaintiff is a member, the claim alleges the sole director misappropriated company assets and breached fiduciary duties (in excess of HK$13 million), and it is in the interests of the company that leave be granted; accordingly leave to commence the derivative action is granted.
13 Jun 2022

WONG WAI CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. WONCORN INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1313/2020

Leave to bring the derivative action was refused because the applicants failed to establish a serious question to be tried on the undisputed evidence: the company had acquiesced to family occupation of the properties so no clear breach of fiduciary duty was shown; the complaint concerned mismanagement rather than actionable misconduct; the claim lacked sufficient particularisation and proper s.733 notice was not given; accordingly it was not in the companys interests to grant leave.
16 Feb 2022

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. BANSILES JAMAICHA BAGUINDO

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 498
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1473/2021

The application for leave was dismissed and the prior s.27 order was upheld because the defendant had habitually and persistently instituted vexatious non-refoulement proceedings, no material change of circumstances or proper grounds were shown to justify lifting the order, and therefore leave to continue was refused.
16 Feb 2022

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. RAMANATHAN ARUNAGIRINATHAR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1472/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate any new facts or realistic prospects of success that would justify lifting or suspending the existing Section 27 order restraining vexatious non‑refoulement litigation; the Section 27 order therefore remains in effect.
31 Jan 2022

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. RAMANATHAN ARUNAGIRINATHAR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 198
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1472/2021

The Court found all three statutory conditions of s.27 satisfied: the Director is an affected person; the defendant habitually and persistently instituted manifestly groundless non-refoulement proceedings and pursued repetitive, untenable challenges at successive levels thereby abusing court process and delaying deportation; and the defendant had been given opportunity to be heard. The Court therefore granted a s.27 order restricting the defendant from instituting or continuing non-refoulement proceedings without leave of the CFI, imposed procedural limits and awarded costs of HK$30,000 to th…
18 Nov 2020

GREAT GENIUS INDUSTRIAL LTD v. LG CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2890
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP203/2020

The court refused leave. Patent infringement and breach of confidence claims lacked a serious question to be tried because the draft claim did not plead infringing acts in Hong Kong (patents are territorial) and the alleged confidential drawing was likely to be disclosed in the patent specification such that the breach of confidence claim had no real prospect. Although there was a serious question to be tried about what the parties had agreed concerning company operations and allegedly unauthorised dealings, pursuing a derivative action at this stage would not be in the interests of the compa…