Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bad faith

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2025

HONGKONG YEEWOTONG VENTUREPHARM TECHNOLOGY GROUPS LTD v. CHINA BEIJING TONG REN TANG GROUP CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2977
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP3/2024

The court refused leave to appeal out of time and refused to admit the proposed new evidence because the evidence could and should have been filed earlier, the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory, the new evidence would not alter the Hearing Officer's conclusions on similarity and bad faith, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; consequent applications (including security) were dismissed and costs awarded to the Opponents.
24 Sept 2024

TONG WAI YEE WINNIE v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 881
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV18/2023

Appeal dismissed; Court affirmed the High Court's award of damages for breach of a collateral contract limited to actual pecuniary loss (net loss of earnings plus registration fee) after mitigation and tax; there was no evidential or legal basis to award general damages for emotional distress, future loss of earnings or exemplary damages because those causes were unproven, not pleaded or legally unavailable, and post-judgment events were irrelevant to quantum.
16 Aug 2024

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LOU YI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1073/2021

The appeal is allowed and unconditional leave to defend is granted because the defendant demonstrated triable issues on construction (whether Clause 6 operates as a condition precedent to Clause 3) and on discharge (bad faith, negligence/connivance, and substantial variation/forbearance), and the cumulative factual matrix including related proceedings constitutes "some other reason" requiring trial; therefore the Master’s conditional payment‑into‑court order was set aside.
2 Feb 2023

RE N.V. SUMATRA TOBACCO TRADING CO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP9/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the Hearing Officer's factual findings that the Subject Mark is visually, aurally and conceptually similar to the Opponent's earlier Double Happiness marks, that those marks enjoy at least enhanced distinctiveness through use, and that the Applicant acted with intention to cause confusing similarity (bad faith) are supported by the evidence and not plainly wrong; accordingly the opposition succeeds and the Subject Application must be refused.
11 Aug 2022

樂氏同仁藥業科技集團有限公司 v. 中國北京同仁堂(集團)有限責任公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP62/2020

The court set aside the Hearing Officer's finding of bad faith (s 11(5)(a)) because the finding relied on unsafe inferences and the registrar erred in rejecting unchallenged sworn evidence without cross-examination; however, on de novo review the Logo Mark was found similar to the Opponent's mark and its registration was refused under s 12(3). For the Words Mark, registration was refused for Classes 32, 33 and 41 due to likelihood of confusion under s 12(3), but allowed for Class 36 because services in Class 36 are dissimilar and therefore no confusion, and the Opponent failed to establish s…
13 May 2022

TONG WAI YEE WINNIE v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1231/2021

The Decision not to issue a provisional offer was amenable to judicial review because recruitment of NETs engages public law powers; the EDB failed to demonstrate a documented or clearly communicated Policy and, in any event, applied any such Policy in an overly rigid and irrational manner; the Decision was therefore unlawful and is to be quashed and the applicant is entitled to damages assessment and costs.
13 Apr 2022

OCEAN CONCEPT HOLDINGS LTD v. SHELTER LOUNGE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3591/2016

The summons to adduce further evidence was dismissed because the Appellant failed to justify the late filing: most of the evidence could and should have been filed before the Registrar, the alleged incompetence or misrepresentation by the prior representative did not amount to sufficient special circumstances, much of the new material was irrelevant or of little significance to the pleaded grounds (notably bad faith and deception as pleaded), and admitting the evidence would cause prejudice, delay and unfair opportunity to redesign the case on appeal; costs were ordered against the Appellant.
19 Nov 2021

TE WING CHI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP981/2021

Given the unprecedented postponement and the Regulation changing the deadline, the court found the applicant's failure to file was inadvertence, not bad faith, satisfying s40(2)(c) ECICO; relief was granted permitting the applicant to lodge the election return out of time and the court awarded costs against the applicant in the sum of HKD 20,000.
19 Apr 2021

樂氏同仁藥業科技集團有限公司 v. 中國北京同仁堂(集團)有限責任公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP62/2020

The court exercised its discretion to refuse admission of the proposed fresh evidence because the evidence could and should have been filed earlier with no satisfactory explanation for the long delay, the proposed evidence was of limited relevance or significance to the issue of bad faith in Hong Kong (much of it concerned non‑Hong Kong use, post‑dating the relevant date, or foreign decisions applying different laws), and admission would cause prejudice and delay to the Respondent; accordingly the application was dismissed with costs.
4 Mar 2020

KWOK HIU KWAN v. JOHNNY CHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP41/2018

Article 74 of the articles gives the chairman a contractual function whose decision at the meeting is final and conclusive and may only be set aside if the chairman acted in bad faith; Article 74 is not subject to an implied qualification permitting review for manifest unreasonableness in the absence of necessity to imply such a term; on the evidence the plaintiff failed to prove bad faith and the originating summons is dismissed; certain without prejudice materials are privileged and struck out.