Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tomlin order

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

MAN KAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. MAN PING NAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA80/2025

The 2nd Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried insofar as his individual rights as an existing Wui member could protect his interests; the injunction was therefore unjustified and must be set aside; the proposed joinder and writ amendments were dismissed because they would produce multiplicity and the issues are properly ventilated in ongoing HCMP 1041/2024; costs orders were made against the 2nd Plaintiff for the continuation summonses with a summary assessment fixed.
2 Dec 2025

OCBC BANK (HONG KONG) LTD (formerly known as OCBC WING HANG BANK LTD) v. ALONG INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1032/2021

Along's defence to the counterclaim was struck out for failure to file a statement of truth, entitling OCBC to judgment under O.19 r.7; applying the established exception to the rule against declarations without trial, the court concluded that justice required granting a declaration that the Purported Invoices and Purported Repayment Plan are void or unenforceable as against P and entered judgment against Along in favour of OCBC.
28 Nov 2025

ONEPLATFORM WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD v. CHIK KAR LUN KARISON

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2021
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5157/2023

The appeal was dismissed because the Defendant breached the Tomlin Schedule by failing to pay HK$250,000, thereby permitting the Plaintiff to enforce the Schedule and obtain judgment; the Defendant's new evidence on appeal would not likely affect the outcome and fails the special grounds test; allegations of wrongful advice by the Defendant's solicitors do not invalidate the Tomlin Schedule absent proof that the Plaintiff had knowledge of such impropriety; no triable issue was raised and a stay of enforcement was inappropriate.
13 Jun 2025

NEW ART HOLDINGS CO., LTD. AND OTHERS v. T&T ART CO., LTD (Formerly known as EST-OUEST AUCTIONS CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA325/2024

The court refused to vary the costs orders nisi. It held the Defendants' delay in confirming their stance on the stay application was reasonable given receipt timing and public holidays; the JPY 36,488,200 formed part of the Japanese proceedings so duplication justified the stay application; the Defendants lost only on a discrete construction point and should bear 20% of costs on that issue; accordingly the earlier costs orders were made absolute with the apportionments set out (Plaintiffs to pay Defendants costs of Order 14 Summons; on Defendants' Summonses Defendants liable for 20% and Plai…
7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2531/2017

Mr Ng failed to establish duress, undue influence or any vitiating factor sufficient to vitiate his consent; there was no evidence the Defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge of any undue influence by Mr Ng's lawyers; Mr Ng had opportunity to reflect and affirmed the settlement; therefore the Schedule is a binding contract and the Defendants' application to enforce it must be granted (with the completion date varied).
7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. GRAND WAYFAIR INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1682/2017

Plaintiff failed to prove duress, undue influence or any vitiating factor traceable to the defendants; his complaints were directed at his own lawyers and there was no evidence defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge; plaintiff had opportunity to reflect and affirmed the settlement; mere hardship or an improvident bargain does not void a freely made settlement; therefore the Schedule to the Tomlin Order is enforceable and the defendants' application to enforce succeeds (with a modified completion date).
15 Jul 2024

MAZEL LTD v. HAO LIN INVESTMENT (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP853/2020

No leave to appeal was required because the Court's enforcement of the Tomlin Order and Settlement Agreement finally determined the parties' substantive rights; the defendant failed to show any arguable grounds of appeal or an appreciable risk to repayment, so no stay of execution was granted; costs to follow the event with a costs order nisi for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the summons dated 2 January 2024.
12 Apr 2024

CHEN PUI CHI AND ANOTHER v. CAI YIFEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1096/2018

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a concluded agreement existed to pay 1.68% per month; exchanges constituted offers, counter‑offers or negotiations and any offer had lapsed or been rejected; court therefore exercised s48 HCO discretion to award conventional pre‑judgment interest at USD prime+1% over the same accrual periods; total pre‑judgment interest awarded USD 21,013.04 and post‑judgment interest under s49 HCO from judgment date until payment.
29 Jan 2024

MAZEL LTD v. HAO LIN INVESTMENT (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP853/2020

The Tomlin Order schedule records a bona fide settlement which constitutes a new enforceable contract; the Loan qualified as an exempted loan under Schedule 1 Part II §2 MLO so the Defendant's illegality defence fails; there was no clear incorporation of MLO provisions into the Loan Agreement; accordingly the enforcement summons succeeds and the appeal dismissing enforcement is dismissed.
3 Oct 2023

UPPLAN COMPANY LTD v. LI HO MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1915/2009

The Schedule is to be given its natural meaning: clauses 6(b) and 6(c) exclude property/profit tax from deductible expenses and clause 14 is a warranty by Virginia that she paid the estimated tax on behalf of KWP up to 31 March 2019 and will not claim contribution from Anita; accordingly Anita and Mother are entitled to recover half the tax shortfall (HK$297,930.50) from Virginia, with interest and costs.