Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conversion to writ

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

HCMP72/2025

The court varied the nisi costs order and directed DBS to pay the Defendants' interlocutory costs because the Conversion Summonses raised substantial triable issues (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle) that had been signalled in correspondence and affirmations such that the originating summons procedure was inappropriate; DBS should have anticipated the factual disputes and its resistance to conversion justified an award of interlocutory costs to the Defendants, with assessed sums fixed by the 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

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.
16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LIMITED v. LEGEND WORLD CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/2025

The court found credible triable issues — namely whether DBS Bank had given reasons for calling in the loans and whether DBS's alleged breach of bank-customer confidentiality caused CNAM to lose a major client such that the prevention principle could bar enforcement — and therefore the originating summonses could not be summarily determined; unconditional leave to defend was granted and the matters were converted to writs and consolidated.
16 Jan 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP69/2025

The court found there are triable issues: (a) the plaintiff did not adequately explain reasons for exercising its right to demand immediate repayment, making the call-in arguable; and (b) there is an arguable prevention principle defence based on an alleged breach of banker-customer confidentiality that plausibly caused CNAM to lose a major client and precipitated inability to pay. Accordingly the originating summonses must be converted to writ actions, leave to defend is granted and consolidation is ordered to permit full adversarial resolution with pleadings and discovery.
16 Jan 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. UNIVERSAL TALENT INC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP72/2025

The court found credible, triable issues: DBS Bank failed to give reasons for demanding immediate repayment and there is an arguable breach of banker-customer confidentiality which could, on the evidence, have caused loss of a major client and consequent repayment failure; those issues are not suitable for summary determination under Order 88 and warrant conversion to writ and unconditional leave to defend.
12 Sept 2025

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD v. ZHENG HAO JIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP792/2024

The court converted §2 of the originating summons to proceed as if begun by writ because the allegations of dishonesty raised substantial factual disputes requiring pleadings and discovery to delineate the ambit of the parties' cases and ensure fairness; discovery and pleadings outweigh the efficiency argument for summary disposal, and affidavits on file will stand as witness statements with permitted supplementation.
18 Jun 2025

HAVE RESULT FINANCE LTD v. CHAN HOW CHUNG VICTOR

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1382/2023

The court concluded that the defendant failed to raise any believable triable issue on the existence of the alleged 2022 restructuring agreement: the alleged agreement was vague, commercially implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation or credible particulars, and inconsistent with the documentary record of written extensions; accordingly summary determination was appropriate, money judgment as per the plaintiff's account (CSY-21) was granted and an order for vacant possession made; the conversion summons was dismissed.
9 Apr 2025

FUTURE DRAGON LTD v. FU LAM INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP401/2023

The court dismissed the leave applications: the defendants abandoned the wrongful inclusion issue at hearing, their allocation and apportionment complaints lacked evidential foundation and were not properly raised or pursued (including discovery), and they failed to show a reasonable prospect of success given the high hurdle for challenging case management decisions; therefore leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered nisi in favour of the plaintiffs.
13 Nov 2024

FUTURE DRAGON LTD v. FU LAM INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2720
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP401/2023

On the evidence filed there were no genuine, substantial factual disputes calling for viva voce evidence or conversion to a writ: the contested budget items were shown to be communal and properly included or at least the defendants offered no evidential basis to the contrary; the alleged rental income issue was contradicted by the plaintiffs' evidence that the pedestrian bridge is not part of the Joylane Arcade common areas; and the purported ground/first floor discrepancy resulted from comparing different budgets. Accordingly conversion was refused and the summonses dismissed.
18 Jun 2024

ZHONG DA MINING HOLDING LTD v. LAM WO PING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1613
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1405/2022

The court held that the question of beneficial ownership of the BVI holding company (P) is material to whether the irregularity principle can cure defects in the challenged shareholder written resolutions; the beneficial ownership issue involves substantial disputed facts that cannot be resolved summarily on affidavit; it was therefore inappropriate to grant the substantive reliefs or injunctions at this stage or to stay to the BVI, and the proper course is to order the action to continue as if begun by writ with directions to plead the factual disputes for trial; the irregularity principle c…