Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral attack

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2026

LEONG MA LI v. HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED (suing on behalf of itself and also in its capacity as the sole shareholder of LONGFORD INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED) (上海梁富信息科技有限公司)

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 18
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV6/2025

Appeal allowed: no contempt liability attached to Leong because after she ceased involvement Tong acted as Longford's employee not as Leong's agent, the injunction contained no clear positive obligation to continue supervision and no term was properly to be implied requiring Leong to monitor Longford's employees; handing over the seal did not by itself authorise or impute Tong's acts to Leong, so the finding of liability and consequent committal/penalty were set aside.
8 Nov 2023

XU HONGBIAO v. OASIS INVESTMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2887
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1963/2020

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds raised fact-sensitive issues decided after an evaluative balancing exercise and did not disclose questions of law with reasonable prospects of success; the Counterclaim was properly characterized and jurisdictional gateways were available; nonetheless a short interim stay of the Costs Order (including summary assessment and time to file defence) was granted until final disposition of any renewed leave application to the Court of Appeal or expiry, and costs orders nisi were made against the Applicants.
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2022

The Court of Appeal held there was no sufficient privity of interest between Lu and Madam Lo to trigger issue or cause of action estoppel; the circumstances did not amount to Henderson v Henderson abuse or a collateral attack preventing Lu from litigating his overlapping claims; the lower judge’s heavy incorporation of counsel submissions required the appellate court to determine the issues afresh; accordingly the striking out orders were set aside and most proposed amendments allowed except for an overbroad proxies clause.
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/2023

The Court of Appeal held there was no sufficient privity of interest between Lu and Madam Lo to sustain cause of action or issue estoppel from the 2019 Judgment; the respondents failed to establish Henderson v Henderson abuse of process or that allowing Lo’s action would be a collateral attack on the 2019 Judgment. Because the trial judge’s judgment extensively incorporated counsel’s submissions such that judicial independence was called into question, the Court exercised its duty to consider the issues afresh, allowed the appeal against the striking out orders, permitted the majority of the…
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV329/2021

The Court of Appeal held there was no sufficient privity between Lu and Madam Lo to give rise to issue or cause of action estoppel; the respondents failed to establish Henderson v Henderson abuse of process or a collateral attack such that striking out was justified; because the judge’s judgment showed excessive incorporation of counsel submissions the Court conducted a fresh, non‑deferential review, set aside the striking out orders, allowed the majority of proposed amendments (excluding an overbroad proxy pleading), and remitted the action to be assigned to another judge with costs directio…
18 Aug 2023

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 983
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP137/2022

The Court of Appeal, having concluded the High Court judgment was deficient and having undertaken fresh review, held there was no sufficient privity of interest between Lu and Madam Lo to give rise to cause of action or issue estoppel; Henderson v Henderson abuse and collateral attack grounds were not made out on the facts; striking out parts of Lu’s statement of claim was unjustified; amendments should be permitted except for an oppressive, non‑particularised proxy allegation; matter remitted for reassignment and costs adjusted accordingly.
2 May 2023

YUEN OI YEE LISA v. NGAI NGOK LEONG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 628
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2022

The originating summons against NNL disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and an abuse of process because NNL was not a party to the prior proceedings and had no duty to the appellant; the allegations of forgery and bias did not provide a valid basis to relitigate concluded matters; accordingly the strike out, dismissal and the restricted proceedings order were justified and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Aug 2022

SUM YEE MING v. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL502/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints concerned private law matters and amounted to collateral attacks on prior judicial decisions, making the application plainly without merit and an abuse of process; accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
16 Jun 2022

MISS YUEN OI YEE LISA v. MR NGAI NGOK LEONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1828
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1936/2021

The originating summons was struck out and the claim dismissed because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process by attempting to re‑litigate matters already dealt with; an RPO was warranted and proportionate to prevent the plaintiff from commencing fresh proceedings on specified related matters without first obtaining leave of the designated judge.
16 May 2022

陳嘉琪 v. 律政司司長 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL313/2022

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify proper grounds, the challenge was time‑barred by delay beyond the three‑month rule, and the proceedings constituted a collateral attack on earlier decisions thereby amounting to an abuse of process.