Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deliberate concealment

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2025

SUN TIAN GANG AND ANOTHER v. CHANGCHUN HIGH & NEW TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT PARENT COMPANY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV476/2022

The Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on section 26(3) and that the trial judge permissibly, as a matter of case management, assumed commission of breaches of duty for the TPI and properly decided elements (ii) and (iii) on that basis; the nominee-sale allegation fell within the scope of the preliminary issues and the judge’s factual findings that the nominee aspect was deliberately concealed (not reasonably discoverable) were sustainable; accordingly the appeals against those findings were dismissed and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeals were dismissed where the judge’s f…
26 Feb 2025

SUN TIAN GANG AND ANOTHER v. CHANGCHUN HIGH & NEW TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT PARENT COMPANY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV475/2022

The Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on section 26(3) and that, as a matter of case management, a trial judge may assume commission of a breach of duty for the purposes of a TPI and determine elements (ii) and (iii) of s26(3) (deliberateness and objective un‑discoverability) without finally determining liability; on the facts the judge properly found deliberate concealment as to the nominee nature of the CG sale but did not err on discoverability or on the reasonable diligence test. Appeals and cross‑appeals were dismissed with costs directions as set out.
9 Nov 2022

SUN TIAN GANG v. CHANGCHUN HIGH & NEW TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT PARENT CO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3348
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA179/2015

The court allowed re‑amendment and joinder of GH insofar as the pleadings alleged a nominee (self‑dealing) sale because, on the assumed breach of duty, the breaches were deliberate and objectively unlikely to have been discovered for some time due to Sun’s prolonged detention and house arrest; s.26(3) applies as an alternative means to establish deliberate concealment and the evidence established deliberate concealment of the nominee nature of the CG Transaction but did not establish discoverability of the sale price or the NXG repayment issue prior to 6 March 2012.
30 Nov 2017

ANGELA YANG v. AXA WEALTH MANAGEMENT (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGELA YANG v. AXA WEALTH MANAGEMENT (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2016/2014

Applying the objective s26(1) test while taking the plaintiff's personal characteristics into account, the court found that the policy documents, illustrative surrender values, account summaries, welcome calls, demand notices and encashment confirmations would have put a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position on inquiry well before October 2008; there was no proven deliberate concealment by defendants to postpone limitation, therefore the claims were time-barred and must be dismissed.
18 Sept 2013

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA537/2013

It is not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud before 2010/2011 because the defendants' public announcements in 2005 were misleading and tended to conceal earlier Beijing court decisions; factual issues remain to be tried on s.26 and the defendants failed to show no possibility the extension could succeed; ordering a preliminary issue would be premature and not plainly advantageous, therefore the 2nd defendant's summons to strike out or order a preliminary issue is dismissed.
7 Jul 2010

LEE TSAN SUM v. DAVID WONG PUI HON AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE TSAN SUM v. DAVID WONG PUI HON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA308/2004

Causes of action accrued on 19 March 1991 (first retainer) and 14 January 1998 (second retainer); there was no deliberate concealment by the defendant because the partner genuinely believed Certificates of Exemption were not necessary and communications (letter of 25 June 1996 and meetings/telephone in January 1998) put the plaintiff on knowledge; s26(1)(b) therefore does not suspend limitation and s31 does not extend limitation so both first and second retainer causes are time-barred.
4 Nov 2003

LEE TAK (or TUCK) YAN AND OTHERS v. THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE, LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE TAK (or TUCK) YAN AND OTHERS v. THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISE, LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4225/2001

The summons was unnecessary and poorly framed because the parties agreed a deemed commencement date which preserved the 6th defendant's limitation position; the 6th defendant failed to show justification for the application and the plaintiffs should recover the costs of the application.
29 Nov 2001

GIMEX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN

Citation

GIMEX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FANG MENG SUNG, JOHN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2436/2001

Section 26(1) and (3) operate to postpone the limitation period where an intentional breach of duty occurred in circumstances in which the breach was unlikely to be discovered, such that the breach amounts to deliberate concealment; on the facts the plaintiff's case that the defendant acted on a full retainer and committed a breach unlikely to be discovered postponed limitation until the 1997 attempted resale, and the defendant failed to establish a credible defence of limited retainer with a real prospect of success, so the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.
31 Dec 1992

THE "RIAU"

Citation

THE "RIAU"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ215/1984

Leave to amend the writ, Statement of Claim and Reply to plead deceit and negligent misrepresentation was granted because the pleaded facts and discovery provided a sufficient evidential basis to sustain a claim in fraud or deliberate concealment, which postponed the commencement of the limitation period under section 26 until discovery, and the court exercised its discretion to allow the amendments despite potential prejudice to defendants.