Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directors' right of inspection

Legal area

Court

22 May 2025

CHOW YIN MAN v. VEGA SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2082
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2423/2024

The originating summonses were dismissed because the Companies demonstrated they had afforded the plaintiff full access to inspect and copy available books and records, many requested items did not exist or were created after the inspections, the plaintiff had not shown court intervention was necessary, and the requests were disproportionate and unnecessary; costs were awarded to the Companies.
2 Jul 2014

LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER v. TOM LEE MUSIC CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER v. TOM LEE MUSIC CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2417/2012

The originating summons was issued prematurely because the plaintiffs and their solicitors misunderstood the scope of directors' inspection rights, seeking copies and compilation rather than inspection; accordingly plaintiffs must pay the defendants' costs of the originating summons and must pay the 8th defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.
6 Sept 2013

TSC v. LYK

Citation

TSC v. LYK
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2359/2013

The Family Court/District Court does not have jurisdiction to grant an 'as of right' inspection under Companies Ordinance s121 or under the common law since 'Court' in the Ordinance means the Court of First Instance; however, exercising its discretion under Order 24 rule 13 RHC the Family Court ordered limited inspection because the contested documents were within the respondent's control, relevant to valuation/ancillary relief and certain specified underlying records were necessary for fair disposal while refusing overly wide and unspecified fishing expeditions.
9 Jul 2012

TSAI SHAO CHUNG v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TSAI SHAO CHUNG v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV185/2011

Article 159 must be construed to permit inspection by individual directors as well as by the board; construing it to permit board-only inspection would unjustifiably deprive individual directors of their established right and be contrary to public policy; there was no clear proof the plaintiff would misuse documents or cause detriment to the company, and the categories sought were reasonably likely to assist the director in performing his duties, so the inspection order should be affirmed without the proposed restrictive condition.
4 Jun 2012

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2062/2011

The applicants established a justified suspicion of wrongful dealing and accounting irregularities; the statutory and common law rights of directors and shareholders to inspect company documents applied, and the respondent failed to prove that inspection would be abused to materially injure the companies; accordingly the applications for production and inspection were allowed.
29 Jun 2006

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2006

Directors retain a right to inspect company documents after appointment of provisional liquidators provided such inspection does not impede the provisional liquidators in the proper discharge of their duties or prejudice the company; provisional liquidators' possession of documents is not exclusive; court will grant inspection of documents held in Hong Kong subject to confidentiality undertakings and costs, and will adjourn inspection of documents at the PRC joint venture pending consultation with the PRC investor.
27 Jul 2001

LAW WAI DUEN v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAW WAI DUEN v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP702/2001

The court held that the right of a director to inspect books flows from the office and is presumptively exercisable for the company's benefit, but the right will be refused where there is clear affirmative evidence of abuse or improper motive; the dispute over beneficial ownership is relevant only as one factor in assessing motive and does not justify staying the inspection applications; on the facts the Husband proved affirmative evidence that the Wife and Daughter sought inspection for self‑interest and to pursue matrimonial/ownership battles rather than to advance company interests, theref…

Hong Kong Case Law

CHOW YIN MAN v. VEGA SERVICES LTD

LEE KING CHEUNG JOHN AND ANOTHER v. TOM LEE MUSIC CO LTD AND OTHERS

TSC v. LYK

TSAI SHAO CHUNG v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD AND OTHERS

CHEN HA PING HEPBURN AND ANOTHER v. CHEN TING SAN DANIEL AND ANOTHER

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

LAW WAI DUEN v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER