Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of confidence

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2026

DIAGCOR BIOSCIENCE INCORPORATED LTD v. CHAN WAI HON BILLY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 488
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP27/2022

On the balance of probabilities the defendants misused Diagcor's confidential information to develop and launch the competing Y‑test: identical primer/probe sequences (notably FM01/MK15), defendants' access, inconsistent pleaded case, absence of contemporaneous design records and unreliable explanations warranted an inference of copying; accordingly Billy and Rhys and the corporate defendants (and other participants in the common enterprise) are liable for breach of confidence; the 3rd defendant is liable in negligence for the Alpha‑Test error but not for the Beta‑Test error.
9 Sept 2025

SEA DRAGON FOOD LTD v. TUNG CHUNG WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4187
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA564/2019

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed because key causes were inadequately pleaded and the plaintiff failed to prove essential elements: fiduciary duties were not pleaded or established as to D2 (and many asserted breaches of duty were unpleaded as to D1); there was no reliable evidence that defendants misappropriated identifiable trade secrets or confidential lists; allegations of solicitation and passing off rested on inadmissible hearsay or inconsistent testimony; consequently no liability was made out.
9 May 2025

BEST BUY ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD v. BUILT-IN PRO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1929
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1002/2024

On the undisputed and expert evidence the plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case of breach of confidence: the Quotations were treated as confidential, defendant accessed them via automated downloads from its web hosting server (defendant's IP) and used the information to approach clients; damages are inadequate because loss is hard to quantify and the balance of convenience favours interlocutory injunctive relief. Norwich Pharmacal disclosure (third and fourth disclosures) is necessary to identify recipients and approached clients to mitigate loss. Exclusions and a fixed six-mont…
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

The alleged oral agreement was not proved and contradicted documented terms; defendant breached the written employment contract by wilfully refusing to report and by operating NICADA without prior consent, justifying summary dismissal under s9(1) Employment Ordinance; however plaintiff failed to prove any loss or that confidential information or IP was misused or withheld, so relief is nominal damages to plaintiff while defendant is entitled to unpaid wages and annual leave shown to be owing.
19 Sept 2024

CONPAK MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD v. LUK WAI TING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1545
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3016/2021

Plaintiff failed to prove that the client contacts or the contents of the forwarded emails had the requisite quality of confidence; other than disclosure to APEC Tax in respect of Angenvoort there was no evidence of misuse to third parties or diversion of business (no engagement by Tom Lee); any conflict of interest in drafting existed but did not result in diverted business or profit; accordingly no breach warranting injunctive relief or account of profits was established and the plaintiff's action is dismissed.
16 Aug 2024

MOXIE COMMUNICATIONS LTD v. LAI CHEUK LOK (aka CHARLOTTE LAI)

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1323
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4624/2021

The Conditions were part of the employment contract and supported by consideration, but both the Restrictive Covenant and the Non-Solicitation Covenant were unenforceable restraints of trade because the Plaintiff failed to identify legitimate proprietary interests (trade secrets or customer connections influenced by the Defendant) that required post-termination protection; the Defendant was a junior employee with no access to pricing or trade secrets, the media contacts were publicly available and not proprietary, the restrictions were excessive in scope and duration, and on the facts the Def…
6 Jun 2024

CRAFT BAMBOO HOLDINGS LTD v. RICHARD PAUL COLEMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2665/2017

On the true construction of the agreements and the factual matrix the 1st Defendant's fiduciary duties and contractual covenants were not so limited as to permit him to divert motorsport sponsorship and commercial representation opportunities to his own company or associated entities without full disclosure and consent; he breached fiduciary duties and contractual obligations, and the 2nd Defendant knowingly received the proceeds and breached its contractual duties and is therefore liable; defendants' counterclaims fail and late amendment was refused.
6 May 2024

MAMMY PANCAKE COMPANY LTD v. CARLA DAY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1044/2021

Given the franchise relationship, the strategic importance of the Michelin‑awarded Shop, and specific communications that Plaintiff would take the lease if franchisee did not renew, lease negotiation information fell within the contractual duties of confidentiality and good faith; the 1st and 2nd Defendants acted dishonestly by misleading Plaintiff and facilitating the 5th Defendant to take the lease, thereby breaching those duties and causing loss; damages for lost profits assessed at $3,803,782.32 and exemplary damages of $300,000 awarded; costs to plaintiff awarded.
1 Mar 2024

TAHOE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. CHEUNG WAI YI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 782
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA344/2024

The court held there was a serious issue to be tried that the Attachments constituted confidential information protected by express contractual term and/or as trade secrets, that disclosure would cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored granting an interlocutory injunction; accordingly plaintiff's application was granted with modifications (deletion of Item 9 and interlocutory wording added) and costs were reserved.
29 Dec 2023

CIRCUITRONIX, LLC v. KINGBOARD CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3359
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1506/2014

The court exercised its discretion to permit many amendments that consolidated prior particulars and evidence because they raised no new causes of action and did not cause irremediable prejudice; amendments introducing new facts, new causes, or novel legal constructions that were late and would require verification of decade‑old facts or unavailable witnesses were refused. The guiding test was whether the proposed amendment was necessary for fair disposal and whether it was bound to fail or caused unremediable prejudice; where prejudice could not be compensated or the amendment raised new tim…