Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third‑party disclosure

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2025

CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP HONG KONG LTD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1068
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV862/2025

The Court allowed the appeal because there was evidence that HSBC had been mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing (notably the USD1.5m payment into Kehong Investment's HSBC account), CNG established a legitimate need to identify recipients and onward transfers to pursue tracing and proprietary claims and to identify further wrongdoers, and the disclosure sought from November 2013 was necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances; the judge below erred by focusing narrowly on whether the disclosure was needed merely for pending stay/arbitration applications and by treating the draft order a…
20 Aug 2025

YAN MELVIN KEI WAI v. LAN YUNQING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3744
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2529/2024

Having accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the transfers to the 4th Defendant occurred on 17 September 2025 and for the same reasons given in the earlier judgment, the court concluded that disclosure by the 4th Defendant's bank is appropriate under section 21(1) of the Evidence Ordinance and Norwich Pharmacal principles.
26 Feb 2025

LEELAN RUKESH MARASINGHE v. DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1457/2018

The court refused the applicant's Disclosure Application and dismissed the 3rd Party Disclosure and Oral Evidence Applications because the applicant failed to establish urgent necessity or jurisdictional basis to compel a non-party resident abroad to produce documents or give live evidence; the appropriate route to seek compelled evidence from a non-resident third party is by letter of request to the relevant foreign court under Order 39 rule 1, and judicial review proceedings ordinarily proceed on the papers so live evidence will only be ordered in exceptional cases where the evidence is dir…
20 Sept 2024

練碧儂對李秀瓊

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1564
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1409/2021

法院撤銷原告之雙方傳票申請，理由為所指向之房屋署署長非本案當事人且未被送達雙方傳票，且申請所求之簽到簿記錄與本案實質爭點無關；因此申請不成，並命令原告即時支付被告訟費HK$1,500。
21 Feb 2024

CHAN LAAM AND OTHERS v. KING & COMPANY (a firm)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1399/2023

On the evidence the Defendant had acted as administrator/intermediary and had possession, custody or control of the Company Documents and Trust Documents; P1 has a substantive proprietary right as a shareholder to inspect Company Documents and the Plaintiffs have equitable grounds as potential beneficiaries to disclosure of Trust Documents; confidentiality and legal professional privilege did not bar disclosure of the identified documents; accordingly the originating summons for production of the requested documents was granted against the Defendant.
27 Jan 2022

ZHOU YACAI v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 355
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP35/2022

The Norwich Pharmacal order was granted because the plaintiff produced cogent evidence of misappropriation and the requested disclosure was narrowly tailored to transactions of specified accounts over a defined period, thereby likely to enable tracing and preservation of the misappropriated funds.
16 Oct 2020

YUEN & PARTNERS v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1609/2020

The application was dismissed because the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction was not properly engaged: the plaintiff failed to demonstrate cogent evidence of wrongdoing by or involving the bank or other identifiable wrongdoers, the relief sought went beyond the accepted rationale of Norwich Pharmacal orders (seeking evidence to vindicate the plaintiff rather than to pursue a wrongdoer), and allowing disclosure merely to save costs or prepare a defence would improperly broaden the jurisdiction and risk opening the floodgates.
9 Aug 2019

GOLIATH FAR EAST LTD v. TENG FEI RUN TRADE LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1959
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1397/2019

Although the Court possesses jurisdiction to order disclosure from a non-party bank under the Ordinance, the exercise of that jurisdiction without giving the bank notice is exceptional and will be confined to cases where notice cannot be given or would defeat the purpose of the order; on the facts before the Court those exceptional conditions were not made out and an ex parte order was inappropriate.
22 Feb 2017

CHAN WAI MAN v. GAN TIAN

Citation

CHAN WAI MAN v. GAN TIAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2841/2014

Prima facie inconsistencies between the defendant’s account of how the plaintiff’s payments were applied and contemporaneous invoices/cheques, together with evidence of transfers from the defendant’s account to Tse and a sufficient close connection between Tse and the defendant, met the relevance threshold under s21 EO; accordingly the plaintiff was permitted to inspect and copy Tse’s bank statements for 6 March 2013 to 4 August 2013 subject to an undertaking limiting use to the present proceedings and to cost directions.
27 Jan 2017

RE THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF PACIFIC ANDES ENTERPRISES (BVI) LTD

Citation

RE THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF PACIFIC ANDES ENTERPRISES (BVI) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3560/2016

The court granted recognition and assistance to the BVI liquidators and authorised them to request and receive from third parties documents and information concerning the companies and their promotion, formation, business dealings, accounts, assets, liabilities or affairs and to exercise ancillary powers in Hong Kong, but declined to grant wording that would be read as creating a unilateral compulsion on third parties to produce documents without a further order under section 221(3) Cap 32 (which is to be sought inter partes).