Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party rights

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2025

JIANGSU SHAGANG MATERIALS TRADING CO., LTD v. DAILY-TECH HONGKONG CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1093/2022

Defendant failed to establish any bona fide triable issue: contemporaneous documents evidenced Defendant's request or acquiescence to the Guarantee giving rise to a presumption of indemnity which Defendant did not credibly rebut; there was no evidence Defendant was not liable to Global; clause 3(a)(ii) ceased to operate upon Global's Notice of Termination (confirmed by email) so Plaintiff's claim was not premature; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and judgment entered for Plaintiff for HK$401,185,002.95 plus interest and costs nisi.
26 Sept 2025

LAM PO YEE v. YU SHUI MUI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2092/2024

Stay Summons dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to prove an arbitration agreement or entitlement under the Contract (Rights of Third Party) Ordinance (no evidence Qookka's agreement with the Defendant conferred a benefit or treated Plaintiff as party), and the Plaintiff had already made the first statement on the substance of the dispute by pursuing an interim injunction with substantive affidavits, thereby precluding reliance on s20; the discovery application was premature and exceptional circumstances were not shown; costs awarded to Defendant on an indemnity basis, gross HK$200,000.
19 Jul 2024

KZ v. KY

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT41/2019

Refusal of leave to extend time due to inordinate 44‑month delay without satisfactory explanation, absence of merit in proposed grounds to set aside (Mainland courts had dismissed procedural and succession-based challenges), respondent had waived jurisdictional/ non-arbitrability objections by failing to raise them earlier, and alleged third‑party rights were insufficient to justify refusal of enforcement; summons dismissed and costs awarded to applicant.
6 Feb 2024

ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW218/2017

Where a taxing master adjourns contested procedural matters to a judge for directions, the judge has jurisdiction to determine directions on how the forthcoming taxation review should be conducted and may order a trial of preliminary issues. An alleged prior agreement or understanding limiting provisional liquidators' fees, if established, is a relevant factor that the taxing master should be directed to consider in the taxation review; accordingly preliminary issues on existence and effect of a claimed fee cap should be tried. Joining Acropolis was unnecessary because it is already a party t…
28 May 2021

ATELIER ENGINEERING LTD v. HONG KONG INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3049/2016

The Court held the Plaintiff had not agreed or waived the balance of the deposit and was entitled to judgment for HK$188,425 with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim was insufficiently pleaded and failed except for nominal damages of HK$1,000 because the Plaintiff repudiated by refusing delivery and delivering some goods to Rosy Acme and the Defendant had validly accepted repudiation; agency and frustration arguments failed; costs were apportioned with the Defendant to pay 50% of the Plaintiff's costs (with an order nisi and further directions).
6 Aug 2013

DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2013

The application for a stay of execution was dismissed. The appellant did not establish that the appeal had such strong prospects as to justify a stay or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory in respect of the order enforcing the put option (HCA 752/2012); the court accepted the plaintiff's undertaking not to sell or dispose of the charged shares without three weeks prior written notice and dismissed the stay application on that basis.
21 Mar 2013

DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA752/2012

The court found on the facts and applicable Singapore law that Dragonrider had authority to issue the put option notice (supported by emails and a prior board resolution), the Dragonrider notice was validly expressed and to be read as exercising severable put rights for each investor identified, prior notices by SIG and Stark Moly did not invalidate or exhaust the subject matter of Dragonrider's notice, and the defendant had not established any triable issue; accordingly specific performance of clauses 16.1(b) and 16.2 was ordered and the Share Charge was enforceable because an event of defau…
27 Feb 2006

HONG KONG KAM LAN KOON LTD v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

HONG KONG KAM LAN KOON LTD v. REALRAY INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/2005

A single judge of the Court of Appeal may make an order in terms of a consent order which allows an appeal provided there is true consent between the parties and the order is proper; the court must assess propriety and potential impact on third party rights; costs of the determination of that procedural question are awarded to the successful party (the defendant by the original action).
17 May 2000

SHENZHEN BAOMING CERAMICS CO LTD v. COMPANION-CHINA LTD

Citation

SHENZHEN BAOMING CERAMICS CO LTD v. COMPANION-CHINA LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV93/2000

The court held that the written agreements, read as a whole, showed the Defendant contracted as the real and only principal, rendering extrinsic evidence of agency inadmissible; accordingly the agency defence did not raise a triable issue. However, because the Defendant asserted a substantial counterclaim arising from the same trading relationship, justice required entering judgment for the admitted sum while staying execution pending trial of the counterclaim and granting leave to defend the balance.
26 Nov 1993

R. v. YEUNG TAK SING AND ANOTHER

Citation

R. v. YEUNG TAK SING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC147/1993

Applying s.56's discretionary power judicially and weighing the statute's policy against the concrete facts, the Court found that Wayfoong Credit Ltd. was blameless, the vehicle's connection to the offence was minimal (mere site of arrest), the company would suffer disproportionate commercial prejudice and there was no basis to infer complicity; accordingly, in all the circumstances it would be unjust to order forfeiture and the vehicle must be released to the legal owner.