Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mediation confidentiality

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2024

LAM SHUN YUEN AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUET KIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2056
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1317/2022

Defendants failed to establish the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required to displace the prima facie costs entitlement under O.22 r.20 and failed to show they gave prior warning before plaintiffs accepted the sanctioned payment; consequently leave to disclose mediation communications was refused and the defendants' summons was dismissed, with costs awarded to plaintiffs.
22 Feb 2024

CHN v. CCY

Citation

[2024] HKFC 33
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1755/2020

The respondent (H) was the successful party on ancillary relief but his failed allegations materially increased time and costs; mediation communications are confidential and inadmissible under the Mediation Ordinance while FDR communications admitted only by the parties' consent; Calderbank and post-FDR offers made by the wife were admissible and H unreasonably refused them; accordingly H must bear 75% of W's costs incurred after the FDR (28 September 2021), and H must pay W's costs of the variation application to be taxed with certificate of two counsel, the costs order to become absolute in…
27 Sept 2023

林張豐對黃亞新

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1104
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP31/2023

The proposed appeal was refused because the defendant's grounds failed to identify any legal error in the judge's application of Mediation Ordinance s8, were largely irrelevant or frivolous, and therefore disclosed no real prospect of success; consequently leave to appeal was properly denied and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
16 Oct 2019

FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN v. LUK MAN LOK ROCKY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1959/2009

Extension of time refused because the 21‑day delay was attributable to the defendant's solicitors' failure to locate documents and there was no justification; alternatively, on the merits the Calderbank offer was not so clearly reasonable (it did not cover the full principal and was from one defendant only) that the plaintiff should have accepted it; application dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
21 Jan 2013

LINCOLN AIR CONDITIONING & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PING FAI RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

LINCOLN AIR CONDITIONING & ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PING FAI RICKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA527/2010

The court held that the impugned paragraphs comprised mediation communications inadmissible without leave under section 9 of the Mediation Ordinance; Ms Ng was not an agent of the plaintiffs and therefore the mediation and subsequent Agreement did not bind the plaintiffs; and statements made during negotiations cannot be used to reinterpret an entire agreement. Accordingly the paragraphs were expunged and the defendants' attempt to plead and adduce evidence based on them was dismissed.
16 Aug 2012

CHU CHUNG MING AND ANOTHER v. LAM WAI DAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHU CHUNG MING AND ANOTHER v. LAM WAI DAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW377/2011

The letter formed part of confidential mediation communications and no exception to mediation confidentiality or without prejudice privilege applied to the two challenged passages; the passages were not necessary for the fair disposal of the petition and could be proved by other means, therefore the letter and the referenced paragraphs of the 1st respondent’s affirmation were struck out.
27 May 2011

LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV17/2010

The application to amend pleadings and adduce new evidence to introduce a rectification claim was dismissed because the proposed claim raised contested factual issues previously available and deliberately not pursued at first instance, the appellate court is not an appropriate forum for such factual disputes, the Flywin principle barred raising the omitted point on appeal, and no exceptional circumstances justified admitting new evidence; costs were ordered against the appellants.
27 May 2011

CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU KOON FOO AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAU KOON FOO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV16/2010

The application was dismissed because the proposed rectification claim would raise new and disputed facts inappropriate for determination by the Court of Final Appeal, the relevant evidence was available at first instance and deliberately not adduced, and the Flywin principle bars raising the omitted point on appeal absent exceptional circumstances; no such circumstances were shown.
29 Apr 2010

S v. T

Citation

S v. T
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2009

The application to admit the evidence was refused because the primary document was a without prejudice settlement document and other material arose from mediation, which is confidential; unilateral waiver by one party is ineffective and admitting such evidence would undermine the mediation process now endorsed by the court.
22 Jan 2010

KENWORTH ENGINEERING LTD v. WATFIELD TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

KENWORTH ENGINEERING LTD v. WATFIELD TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2008

The court held that (1) Watfield must repay the $2,500,000 loan (with interest per the loan facility from drawdown dates to judgment, thereafter at the judgment rate) because forecasts were non-actionable and rescission would still require restitution; and (2) Watfield is liable to indemnify Kenworth $9,820,819.63 (interest from date of judgment) under the unqualified indemnity obligation in the Pre-Tender Agreement and Shareholders Agreement; allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, marginalisation and wrongful diversion of funds were not proved or did not relieve Watfield of contractual lia…