Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of confidentiality

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP71/2025

The court varied the costs order nisi and ordered DBS Bank to pay the defendants' costs of the Conversion Summonses including the hearing because the defendants established triable issues (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle/breach of confidentiality) and DBS should have anticipated substantial factual disputes that made the originating summons procedure inappropriate; the court exercised its discretion to depart from the usual order in cause and assessed a reasonable quantum after disallowing or reducing specific items and penalising certain conduct relating to the T…
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi because, on the facts and correspondence, the plaintiff should have anticipated substantial factual disputes (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle/breach of confidentiality) that made the originating summons procedure inappropriate; accordingly DBS Bank was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the Conversion Summonses (including the hearing) and specified costs for the Costs Summons and Time Summons.
27 Jun 2025

SUPER WIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD v. LAM LAI KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1064
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5699/2023

The plaintiff produced cogent documentary evidence (comparison documents and accounting/payment records) establishing overlapping claims and absence of supporting documents for alleged trips; the 1st defendant failed to particularise or produce credible evidence to rebut the claim or to support defences such as change of position or ministerial receipt; accordingly there was no bona fide triable issue and summary judgment was appropriate against the 1st defendant for HK$1,555,059.34. By contrast, the 2nd defendant raised credible conflicting evidence about her role and responsibilities and th…
29 May 2015

NEW TEAM INTERNATIONAL LTD v. YAU YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

NEW TEAM INTERNATIONAL LTD v. YAU YIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1161/2015

The court was satisfied on the available evidence that there was a serious issue to be tried as to misuse of client information and copying of the plaintiff's leaflet; given the express contractual confidentiality covenant and the White Book guidance, an interim injunction was appropriate and should be granted pending resolution of the summons and directions for the giving of evidence.
29 Jul 2011

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD

Citation

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ605/2008

The settlement recorded at the Labour Department (12 March 2007) was a bona fide compromise and Macpi HK cannot recover part of that payment as a mistaken overpayment; clause 3 is construed to mean the US$500,000 threshold applies annually with payment frequency every six months, and because the proposed variation in January 2007 was not agreed the original contract terms govern; Macpi HK failed to prove misconduct, so defendant entitled to one month's wages in lieu and to commissions for 2007 calculated under original terms resulting in a net judgment in her favour.
12 Jun 2001

INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS

Citation

INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1069/2000

The Court held the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action: the MOA was non‑binding and did not promise capital injection sufficient to relieve Applecrest's financial distress; the pleaded breaches of shareholders' agreement and fiduciary duties were unsupported or irrelevant on the pleaded facts; the conspiracy and confidentiality claims were inadequately particularised. Consequently the judge was right to strike out the statement of claim and dismiss the action; the Court refused to allow the substantial new causes of action proposed in the fresh amended statement of clai…
24 Nov 1999

FRANCIS CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL

Citation

FRANCIS CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV157/1999

Affidavit evidence of a tribunal member's post‑hearing conduct and admissions that go to alleged misconduct or non‑participation is admissible in judicial review proceedings (hearsay may be considered and weighted by the court); mere breach of confidence does not automatically invalidate tribunal findings, but non‑participation or misconduct that affects the validity of the decision is a proper subject of inquiry and must be determined at a full hearing.

Hong Kong Case Law

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

SUPER WIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD v. LAM LAI KUEN AND ANOTHER

NEW TEAM INTERNATIONAL LTD v. YAU YIM AND OTHERS

YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND v. MACPI GROUP (H.K.) LTD

INFINITY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS

FRANCIS CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. INSIDER DEALING TRIBUNAL