Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of candour

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2025

TT AND OTHERS v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1343/2025

The summons for production was dismissed because the Applicants' pleaded case was a systemic challenge to the published procedure of delegating drafting to the Acting Secretary and not a claim requiring inspection of a particular draft; the draft decision was not necessary for disposing fairly of the matter nor for saving costs under Order 24 rule 13(1); ordering production would amount to a fishing expedition, risk unnecessary delay and costs, and would not assist the Court given the Exchange's evidence that published procedures were followed.
15 Aug 2025

LN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1090/2022

The court held that the applicant's challenge was, on the material facts, an abusive collateral attack on the criminal conviction because the TIP claim depended on factual assertions (lack of knowledge/deception) already rejected in criminal proceedings; Grounds challenging the Operational Practice and abuse were considered but failed on substantive review; the reasons ground was initially arguable because the decision letter lacked detail but became academic once fuller reasons were disclosed; overall the application is dismissed.
16 May 2025

FORTUNE CHANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE APPEAL BOARD NOMINATED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ORDINANCE CAP. 563

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1295/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Judge concluded none of the nine proposed grounds identified an arguable error of law with a realistic prospect of success: the Appeal Board correctly treated the appeal as de novo, exercised its discretion appropriately in framing issues by reference to the Amended Notice of Appeal, did not unlawfully restrict evidence or breach duties of disclosure or candour, adequately addressed material considerations (including timing of building plan approval, evidence of intent and financial capacity), applied the proportionality framework wit…
19 Aug 2024

SIME DARBY MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 26
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV71/2024

Leave to appeal was granted only on two reformulated questions of public importance: (1) the circumstances in which Director of Lands' decisions on land exchange, lease modification or other government lease matters are amenable to judicial review; and (2) if reviewable, whether application of a policy that may render land incapable of meaningful development is inherently illogical, irrational or perverse. Leave was refused on the remaining questions because the Court of Appeal's factual findings that the Director had considered exceptions and genuinely exercised discretion were not shown to…
1 Apr 2022

LW v. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1072/2021

The intervention was dismissed: the Confidential Information concerning the Panel's private deliberations is not relevant or necessary to resolve the Applicant's ground alleging failure of "due inquiry" because what was before the Panel and the reasons for its Decision and Sentence are clear from the record; disclosure of in‑camera deliberations is contrary to public interest immunity and would undermine the integrity and candidness of adjudicative processes; the intended intervener is not a proper person to be heard under Order 53 r.5B; accordingly the balance of public interests favours mai…
29 Sept 2021

CB v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL617/2021

Court allowed the applicant to amend Form 86; declined to grant leave to apply for judicial review at this stage and adjourned the summons for leave; refused discovery for category 1 based on the officer's affirmation of non-existence of further documents; ordered discovery of categories 2 and 3 (written statements/VRI by the accused and unused prosecution materials) as relevant to whether BOR 4 duties were fulfilled, while leaving directions for further conduct to be determined.
10 Sept 2021

LI CHIU WAH JOSEPH v. HONG KONG SOCIETY OF NOTARIES

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1270
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV394/2020

The summons to re-amend the Notice of Appeal to add Ground 6A was dismissed because the proposed ground was not a pure point of law, raised a fact‑sensitive issue requiring evidence and determinations appropriately made at first instance, and raising it on appeal would be unfair to the Respondent under the Flywin/Lehmanbrown fairness principle; accordingly the Court refused the amendment and ordered costs against the Applicant in the sum of HK$60,600.
3 Nov 2020

FUNG MAN CHEE MAGGIE AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2810
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL279/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the Applicants met the threshold of reasonable arguability with a realistic prospect of success; there was prima facie relevance of the documents referred to on the issue of bias and other grounds, and it was appropriate to split the rolled-up hearing so leave can be determined and, if granted, disclosure and substantive issues can be addressed at a later hearing.
2 Nov 2020

LEE CHU MING, MARTIN AND OTHERS v. A PERMANENT MAGISTRATE, EASTERN MAGISTRACY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1396/2020

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and dismissed the amended summons: the Applicants failed on the substantive challenge to the search warrants (Grounds 1–3) and there were no exceptional or public interest reasons to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the Commissioner was largely successful and did not actively cause the Magistrate’s error such as to warrant adverse costs treatment.
12 Jun 2020

COMPANHIA DE ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO WENG FOK, LIMITADA v. HONG KONG ACCREDITATION SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1153/2019

The court allowed the respondents' application for a split hearing and ordered the pre-existing rolled-up hearing be confined to the leave application only because confidentiality obligations to the interested party prevented HKAS from adducing full evidence at a rolled-up substantive hearing; fairness and the duty of candour require leave to be determined first so that, if leave is granted, HKAS may be obliged by law to disclose investigation material to the court. Respondents' delay in making the split application warranted a 50% reduction in costs recovery.