Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of full and frank disclosure

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

FRIAS MYRIS JAY SARBUES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1745
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL579/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to state any grounds amounting to a reasonably arguable case and there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision which had lawfully concluded that reasonable state protection and viable internal relocation were available.
14 Oct 2025

CHOW PO TAI v. CHEN CAO LIYAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2379/2024

The court found two material and significant failures of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application (misrepresentation/concealment of the true close relationship between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant, and failure to disclose that substantial transfers were to Plaintiff's own accounts). Given the seriousness of those non-disclosures, and in the absence of solid evidence of a risk of dissipation, the Judge exercised discretion not to continue or re-grant the Amended Ex Parte Order and denied all injunctive relief against the Defendants; costs awarded to Defendants on a party-to-party b…
25 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL691/2020

The leave application is dismissed because the applicant filed more than seven months out of time without providing a credible or documented explanation for delay, failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of judicial review that would survive enhanced scrutiny, and the TCAB/NRCPO decision showed no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention.
30 Jun 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2060
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL209/2020

The Board correctly applied the law and standards, made justified adverse credibility findings supported by inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's account, reasonably concluded internal relocation and state protection were available, and there were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant therefore failed to show a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects and leave is refused.
22 May 2025

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SUN ASCENT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP58/2022

The defendants' application to set aside the ex parte leave lacked merit because the alleged new evidence was not material to the limited inquiry at the ex parte stage and the defendants' pre-summons letter was an ultimatum not seeking explanation; accordingly costs follow the event and the Order Nisi is varied so that the costs of the summons are to the plaintiff with a certificate for two counsel, taxed if not agreed; costs of the costs variation application are to the plaintiff; no order as to costs of the direction hearing and no certificate for two counsel for the costs variation applica…
20 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL193/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify grounds for judicial review, failed to make full and frank disclosure, provided no substantive evidence beyond the Board's decision, and thus did not establish a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Board's Decision.
6 May 2025

CAPITAL CENTURY TEXTILE CO LTD v. LI DIANXIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 650
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2012

The ex parte post-judgment Mareva injunction was justified because secrecy and urgency were established by the defendant's history of dishonest convictions related to the subject matter and by the demonstrable BOC withdrawal showing real risk of dissipation; there was no material non-disclosure by the applicant; the estimated quantum of HK$17,000,000 was supported by the judgment debtor's outstanding accounts and known proceeds; the disclosure order was necessary for enforcement and policing of the injunction; the defendant failed to show cogent reasons to release frozen funds for litigation…
29 Apr 2025

盛京銀行股份有限公司（北京中關村支行） v. ZHANG HONGWEI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1753
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA597/2025

The Injunction Order was set aside because the Plaintiff deliberately and materially failed to disclose the existence and relevance of parallel PRC proceedings (including a PRC preservation order and a PRC judgment) that covered the same credit facilities and materially affected loss, damages and asset coverage; that deliberate non-disclosure vitiated the basis on which the interim Mareva injunction was granted, justifying immediate setting aside and indemnity costs.
26 Feb 2025

YEUNG WING KWONG v. LEE JIA RUI SABRINA LEE, appointed by order dated 6th June 2023 to represent the estate of CHOI WAI KONG, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1372/2020

The default judgment was set aside by consent; there was no blameworthy conduct by either party (the irregularity resulted from an improbable coincidence of death), the plaintiff was not culpable for failing to conduct an updated death search in the circumstances, and the court exercised its discretion on costs by ordering no order as to costs.
28 Jan 2025

羅希孝對裁判官屈麗雯

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1947/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material documents in an ex parte leave application and the magistrate's refusal to issue private summonses was a reasonable application of the prima facie screening test; the proposed criminal charges lacked sufficient prima facie evidence and the judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, so even if leave were granted the substantive claim would be dismissed.