Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Purging contempt

Legal area

Court

7 May 2026

LUEN TAT WATCH BAND MANUFACTURER LTD v. STEPHEN LIU YIU KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2564
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1567/2021

The production order requiring delivery of "all" Schedule 1 documents was to be given its literal meaning. Defendants breached the order by relying on an 85-keyword search that was under-inclusive, by failing to search Lotus Notes backups of former employees and by omitting Category C documents, and by filing false confirmatory affidavits. Mens rea was established for breaches where the defendants consciously and voluntarily adopted an inadequate methodology (keyword list and omission of former employees/Category C). Other omissions (certain custodians, Exchange server/corrupted files) were a…
23 Jan 2026

LCH v. WPSN

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV133/2025

Where a judgment creditor possesses sufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a judgment debtor intentionally breached an undertaking to pay, the creditor may proceed directly to committal without a preliminary judgment summons examination; the debtor must adduce evidence of inability to pay if relied upon, and failure to avail himself of opportunities to be heard is dispositive. Accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
10 Jul 2025

AU TZE PUI v. CHOW WING MAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2995
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP68/2025

Because the defendant voluntarily gave a simple undertaking and deliberately breached it without evidence of inability to comply, failed to purge the contempt despite multiple opportunities and produced no credible proof of means to repay, a short custodial sentence (six weeks) is necessary to punish and coerce compliance; the sentence should not be suspended and costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis at HK$350,000.
11 Jun 2025

AU TZE PUI v. CHOW WING MAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP68/2025

The undertaking was clear: hold HK$1.1 million on trust and not use it. Mr Chow admitted on multiple occasions to spending the money on legal and personal expenses, was legally represented when giving the undertaking, understood its effect, and refused to pay the funds into Court; these facts establish beyond reasonable doubt that he breached the undertaking and had the requisite state of mind for contempt. Defences of fraud, duress and that the spending protected the company are matters for trial or were unmeritorious; contempt established and matter adjourned for mitigation and sentencing w…
24 Mar 2025

K v. A

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2186/2021

The respondent was guilty of contempt on Count 1 (disclosure) because the Li affidavit objectively did not disclose HVD’s exact whereabouts forthwith and was prepared to support a stay application rather than to comply with the disclosure order; the respondent’s assertion he authorised disclosure for that purpose was rejected as incredible. He was guilty on Count 2 (return) because he failed to take the necessary steps to return HVD by the 14‑day deadline and the evidence establishes the omission was deliberate or not accidental; the post‑deadline medical explanations did not purge the origin…
20 May 2024

LO PO WAI, HARRY v. WONG YEE CHUK

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1444/2022

Contempt for non-compliance with disclosure orders was established; the defendant's conduct was reckless and highly culpable though not contumaciously intentional; imprisonment was not appropriate; a fine of HK$150,000 was proportionate; payment within 28 days; defendant to bear 75% of costs on an indemnity basis.
20 Dec 2023

YU QUAN LI AND ANOTHER v. SUEN KIN WING

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP633/2019

Defendant received concurrent immediate custodial sentences of six months on each count because the breaches of the freezing injunction and disclosure order were deliberate, intentional and wilful, could not be purged (assignment irreversible and no disclosure offered), caused real prejudice to the plaintiffs and did not justify suspension of imprisonment.
18 Aug 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YEUNG HIN WUN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP674/2022

Balancing the need to enforce the injunction and deter breaches against the Defendant's remorse, cooperation, youth, good character and the inordinate delay in bringing proceedings, the appropriate, proportionate sanction was two months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months together with a contribution of HK$80,000 towards the SJ's costs; the breach was aggravated by misuse of access as a service provider and the substantial immediate harm caused to the victims.
9 Feb 2023

ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER v. LEE SIU FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1106/2021

The defendants were guilty of contempt for delayed and incomplete compliance with the s.29 order but had purged the contempt before sentencing; the delay could be credibly attributed to reliance on legal advice and many alleged missing documents were not required under the correct construction of paragraph 2; there was no identified irremediable prejudice warranting imprisonment; accordingly a punitive fine of HK$200,000 each was appropriate and costs were to be awarded on a party-and-party basis but not indemnity and not the trustees’ own administrative costs.
26 Aug 2021

CHEUNG KAM BIU AND OTHERS v. 何華蘭

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1013
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1365/2021

Defendant admitted contempt; purge of contempt by removal of offending items was accepted; mitigating factors warranted suspension; appropriate sentence is 14 days' imprisonment suspended for 12 months; defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis assessed at HK$132,040.50.