Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-compete clause

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

PANDO FINANCE LTD v. NG EAN KIAM

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1046
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1567/2025

The plaintiff's application for an interlocutory non‑compete injunction was dismissed because it failed to demonstrate good or better prospects of success: the non‑compete is overbroad (worldwide scope and undefined competitive field), the 12‑month duration was unjustified, the plaintiff did not identify protectable confidential information with sufficient particularity or evidence of misuse by the defendant, the defendant gave enforceable confidentiality undertakings, and on balance of convenience the prejudice to the defendant (loss of employment, stigma, career impact) outweighed any unpro…
12 Jun 2025

P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2446
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT59/2023

The court held that applicants failed to show any structural or egregious procedural irregularity or appearance of bias: the tribunal exercised legitimate case management powers, properly considered risks of unconscious bias and the option of an expert, was capable of disregarding inadmissible without prejudice material, and reasonably reserved Clause 6 issues to Phase 2 for further disclosure and remedies; accordingly the award was not vulnerable to setting aside under s81 AO/UNCITRAL Article 34(2).
17 Feb 2023

SALLEH ABU BAKER v. ANWAY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 187
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV568/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's findings that there was no proved oral agreement to vary the 3-month notice clause were reasonable and not plainly wrong; the appellant failed to discharge the high burden to displace the judge's credibility and factual findings, making it unnecessary to decide issues of estoppel or authority.
17 Nov 2021

SALLEH ABU BAKER v. ANWAY LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2359/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff failed to prove an oral variation of the three‑month notice clause; the Plaintiff's own contemporaneous letter and admissions negated any concluded agreement, the alleged 18–24 month notice was commercially implausible and unsupported by documentary/electronic evidence, therefore the contractual three‑month notice remained effective and the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
9 Aug 2021

Z v. R

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2312
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT11/2021

Reading the award in context, the tribunal addressed and rejected both the express and implied term contentions (as evident in paragraph 65 and 66), the availability/bareboat issue was joined on the pleadings and supported by the Defendant's witness evidence so the Plaintiff had notice and opportunity to meet it and waived any objection by failing to seek relief during the arbitration; the tribunal's construction of 'available' fell within matters put in play by the parties. The Plaintiff failed to prove a ground for setting aside and the application is dismissed.
9 Nov 2018

MIRADRY, INC v. LI HAOJIAN (also known as COACH LI)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1143/2018

Having reviewed the evidential material put before the court, the judge was satisfied there was plainly a good arguable case against each defendant of a coordinated scheme involving illicit stockpiling, misuse of distributorship arrangements and breaches of employment non-compete/loyalty obligations and that the ex parte Mareva injunctions should be continued; alleged omissions did not, on the material presented, justify discharging the orders.
9 Nov 2018

MIRADRY, INC v. LAM SIK YUEN JAMES (also known as JAMES LAM)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1142/2018

The court was satisfied that, on the materials placed before it, there was plainly a good arguable case against each defendant for illicit stockpiling, misuse of distributorship arrangements, creation of a misleading website and breach of non-compete obligations; accordingly the Mareva/freeze-related relief granted on an ex parte basis should be continued rather than discharged because the alleged non-disclosures did not, at this stage, undermine the existence of a good arguable case or the risk of dissipation.
29 Aug 2013

UNION GAIN LTD v. CHU WILTON LUCAS

Citation

UNION GAIN LTD v. CHU WILTON LUCAS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2383/2013

Clause 9(a)(iii) is plainly unreasonably wide and the plaintiff failed to plead particulars or adduce evidence to justify each element of the restriction (subject matter, geographic radius, duration); accordingly the plaintiff has no good prospect of success and the interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
24 May 2013

WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHRISTOPHER O’DONNELL

Citation

WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHRISTOPHER O’DONNELL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA637/2013

Interlocutory injunction in respect of clause 22.2(a) refused because plaintiff failed to establish cogent evidence justifying the 12-month restraint and failed to particularise confidential information with sufficient precision; the covenant was excessively wide and the plaintiff had adequate alternative protection via undertakings (defendant and Posterscope) and was guilty of unexplained delay; therefore plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficient prospects of success to justify final-type relief at interlocutory stage.
31 Jan 2013

LILAS AROMAS LTD v. CHAN KA YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LILAS AROMAS LTD v. CHAN KA YAN AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3868/2012

The plaintiff's application was dismissed because the non-competition clause was wider than reasonably necessary and vague in its geographic scope (cannot be blue‑penciled without rewriting clause 3.1), the plaintiff failed to show that customer names and mobile numbers were confidential or misused, and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo given delay and the short remaining duration of proposed injunctions, so the plaintiff lacked a good prospect of success.