Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery up of documents

Legal area

Court

6 Feb 2026

STRONG PETROCHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD v. LOEB & LOEB LLP (A FIRM)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1105/2025

Following Ho On Mansion and Wentworth, the Court held that documents plainly belonging to the client must be delivered up and that, for documents arguably belonging to the solicitor, the court will order copies or inspection where the request is reasonable, relates to business transacted on the client's behalf, and the client is prepared to meet reasonable copying costs. Ownership objections and termination of retainer do not, without more, defeat the client's right to obtain documents or explanations for missing documents. Accordingly the defendant was ordered to deliver specified categories…
10 Nov 2025

STRONG PETROCHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD v. JUN HE LAW OFFICES (A FIRM)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5281
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1106/2025

The court ordered delivery up of the plaintiff's requested documents because statutory secrecy under SFO s378 does not prevent disclosure pursuant to a court order; the defendant's late claim of regulator consent and failure to disclose particulars was rejected; limited compliance costs were allowed (HK$50,000) because the defendant failed to substantiate its larger claim; extensions of time were refused or granted only by consent and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs for the interlocutory summonses, with indemnity costs for the second and third summonses due to inadequat…
11 Mar 2022

CHAU PUI NGAI v. CHAU PUI FUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 433
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP186/2021

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew of the clear Orders for Delivery Up (properly served by substituted service or evaded), had the title deeds or the documents in his possession or power, intentionally evaded compliance and therefore was guilty of civil contempt; committal was justified but sentencing was adjourned to allow the Defendant to be heard.
17 Jan 2022

CREATIVE PROPERTY SERVICES CONSULTANTS LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KING MING COURT

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2478/2017

The Court held Defendant liable to pay the outstanding management fees of HK$6,025,724.92; the Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff retained the Defendant's documents or breached duties to deliver them up; however funds remaining in the manager's Hang Seng bank account are held on a Quistclose trust for the Defendant and the Plaintiff must account for and return the sums currently standing in credit; the two claims are distinct and not to be automatically set off against each other.
31 Mar 2021

LUEN TAT WATCH BAND MANUFACTURER LTD v. STEPHEN LIU YIU KEUNG DAVID YEN CHING WAI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1071/2018

The Former Liquidators demonstrated arguable but not strong grounds of appeal and failed to identify or evidence specific documents that fall outside the prima facie duty to deliver; the evidential burden rests on them as holders of the documents; the balance of prejudice favoured the plaintiff because wasted costs alone do not justify a stay and the plaintiff would suffer prejudice from non-compliance; accordingly the stay pending appeal was refused and compliance ordered within 28 days, with costs awarded to the plaintiff of HK$180,000 on the standard basis.
7 Oct 2020

LUEN TAT WATCH BAND MANUFACTURER LTD v. STEPHEN LIU YIU KEUNG DAVID YEN CHING WAI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1071/2018

The court held that documents generated in the course of the liquidation and/or in the course of acting as liquidators relating to the company's affairs are, prima facie, the company's property and must be delivered up; the defendants failed to discharge the burden of identifying categories of documents they were entitled to retain and therefore the order in Schedule 1 must be made and costs awarded on an indemnity basis.
28 Jul 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HO ON MANSION v. HERMAN H.M. HUI & CO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1608/2019

The court varied the earlier costs order nisi: bearing in mind the parties' conduct, the plaintiff's inflexible approach and failure to narrow issues, and the defendant's attempts to settle and provide documents, the defendant must pay two-thirds of the costs of the Originating Summons to the plaintiff (excluding the costs of reproducing the Solicitors' Guide save for 7 specified pages), with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; and the costs of the defendant's variation application are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant with a certificate for one counsel, to be taxed…
20 May 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HO ON MANSION v. HERMAN H M HUI & CO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1608/2019

The court held that, applying principles in Wentworth and authorities on ownership of solicitors' files and the scope of retainer, the Plaintiff was entitled to delivery up or copies (as appropriate) of specified documents falling within categories 1,3,4,5 and 7 (originals of contracts settled by the Defendant relating to the Repair Work; originals of contracts prepared by third parties; originals of bank receipts/payment notices from owners; copies of client account bank statements showing dealings with the Plaintiff's funds, suitably redacted; copies/originals of correspondence and letters…
22 Apr 2020

UNITED KESVICK LTD v. TSANG WING FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA804/2019

Because the damages clause was included in the Summons it was not excluded by lateness and the court therefore ordered that paragraph 10 (including the claim for damages if the documents are not delivered up) be included in the order. The court relied on its prior findings of 3 January 2020 and declined to make further determinations about the Administratrix's resignation, referring to paragraph 8 of the earlier judgment.
14 Nov 2017

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1526/2013

The Companies' summons of 12 September 2017 was premature because the court-appointed Valuer's Q&A session and the possibility of supplemental reports meant the valuation process was arguably incomplete; therefore there is no order as to costs for the period before 12 September 2017, and specified relief on the amended inter partes summons was dismissed or left without order as detailed.