Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of disclosure

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2026

ZULAIKAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1915
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL697/2022

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to state any grounds or identify errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the court found on review of the Board's decision that it gave adequate reasons: the threats by non-state actors did not demonstrate a genuine and substantial risk and there was no evidence state protection would be unavailable, so the challenge was not reasonably arguable.
26 Feb 2026

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 317
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC223/2022

Convictions quashed because the prosecution failed to prove that Apple Daily Printing owed a duty of disclosure to the Corporation (no express or implied term and no special relationship sufficient to create such duty), failed to establish lawful attribution of any such duty or false representations to the individual applicants, and failed to prove falsity and requisite mens rea beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge erred in holding otherwise.
23 Dec 2025

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1150
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC425/2015

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed convictions of the 2nd to 12th applicants because the cumulative evidence established a real and substantial conflict of interest and flagrant incompetence by their joint legal team that deprived the applicants of a fair trial; the court rejected the constitutional challenge under BL40 as unavailing but did not need to decide it further given the procedural unfairness finding.
30 Oct 2025

QAISAR MEHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4863
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1818/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board was entitled to disbelieve the applicant given his refusal to answer questions and unexplained gaps, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness warranting interference with the Board's fact-finding.
18 Feb 2025

李思行及周慧蘭作為敖家維破產產業的受託人對敖家維

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 390
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8064/2019

On the balance of probabilities the court found the trustees' complaints proved: the bankrupt privately expended at least about HK$130,000 of bonuses and other rewards and failed to timely provide pay records and annual statements; these failures amounted to lack of full and frank disclosure and non-cooperation justifying postponement. The appropriate remedy was to postpone the automatic discharge of the bankruptcy order for two years from 26 October 2024 and to order the bankrupt to pay the trustees' costs, with a costs nisi procedure and set timetable for any taxation objections.
14 Feb 2024

YIELD-THE-BEST LTD v. ZHUO SAIYUN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 235
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5170/2022

The injunction was continued because there is a serious question to be tried on adverse possession; the defendant had been served and had opportunity to be heard so the duty of full and frank disclosure did not apply to discharge the injunction; the plaintiff demonstrated financial capacity to give an undertaking as to damages, making damages an adequate remedy for the defendant, and accordingly there was no reason to refuse continuation of the interim-interim injunction until trial.
20 Sept 2023

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2401
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

The court held that Mr William Wong may be called both as a factual witness about what occurred in relation to the publication and pre-vetting by the Listing Division and as an expert witness to explain the operation and standards of the Stock Exchange; although the legal construction of the Listing Rules is for the court, evidence from an experienced regulator about how the Listing Division operates and what would or might have happened if additional facts had been known is admissible, and any incorrect legal interpretation by the witness will be corrected by the judge in directions to the j…
24 Sept 2021

YUNG HO AND ANOTHER v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 958
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP534/2021

The Court granted the Intended Intervener leave to intervene but adjourned the application to restore the company and ordered the Applicants to file supplemental evidence because the Applicants' explanation for restoration was seriously deficient and inadequate to allow the court to assess impact on third parties or the merits.
30 Jun 2021

LEUNG PING CHIU, ROY, appointed by Order dated 12 May 2020 to represent the ESTATE OF YANG FOO-OI, since deceased v. WAI WAI CHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 941
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV241/2016

Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge: the CHL/related offshore scheme was a sham in substance and Chen remained beneficial owner so transfers were held by Vivien as trustee; Proposal A/B were intended to have legal effect and gave Yang a one‑third beneficial entitlement to what her daughters received; Vivien owed fiduciary duties and a duty of disclosure (as fiduciary and under family‑arrangement principles) and breached them by failing to disclose the true market value and by making misleading statements; the Disputed Agreements were procured by undue influence and are rescindable; equit…
19 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. KHAN ASIF ALI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1431
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC322/2018

The judge miscarried in exercise of discretion by failing to consider WhatsApp audio recordings in the prosecution's possession which were relevant and could, on one view, suggest the appellant might be innocent; that failure vitiated the plea-process fairness and required allowing the appeal, quashing the conviction and ordering an expeditious retrial.