Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good faith

Legal area

Court

16 May 2025

MAMMY PANCAKE COMPANY LTD v. CARLA DAY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2218
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1044/2021

The judgment was not irregular because the 2nd Defendant deliberately evaded service by instructing her sister to return mail sent to the record address, so service was deemed good; the pleaded facts and evidence supported findings of dishonesty and breach of the good faith clause; there was no real prospect of success on appeal; accordingly the setting aside summons and the extension of time to appeal were refused and costs were awarded against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
2 Dec 2024

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEWIS PETER JOHN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2030
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5479/2021

Plaintiff's application for summary judgment was properly constituted and established the indebtedness. Defendant failed to present credible evidence of a real or bona fide defence and his factual assertions (non‑agreement to terms, alleged waiver of interest, concluded restructuring plan, loss from account closure) were implausible or unsupported. The counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was plainly unsustainable. Therefore summary judgment and striking out of the counterclaim were justified and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
16 Sept 2024

THE CHIUS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD v. MACKING DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP538/2022

The originating summons was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to identify a proper purpose for inspection under s.740, provided only undeveloped allegations of fraud insufficient to justify inspection, and most requested documents had already been provided; therefore the application was not merited and costs were awarded to the Defendant (party-and-party, taxed if not agreed) with indemnity costs refused.
6 Apr 2022

MORNING RAY INVESTMENT CO LTD v. JINHUI INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1155/2021

The application was dismissed because the applicant had a director with a clear legal right to inspect and copy the company’s documents and failed to explain why that right was not exercised; accordingly the section 740 application was not for a proper purpose (or, in the exercise of discretion, relief should be refused absent good reason for not using the director’s rights). An order nisi was made that Morning Ray pay the Company's costs to be taxed if not agreed.
15 Dec 2021

CHEUNG LI ON v. SUN LIFE HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2549/2016

The Corporate Agency Letter and the alleged 2015 Arrangement were non-binding or not established as part of the contract; the Written Notice requirement had not been satisfied and was not waived; no enforceable Buy-Out Agreement existed (and any purported agreement was linked to unresolved consultancy terms and was repudiated by plaintiff's own communications); an implied restriction on Sun Life's contractual right to terminate by notice would contradict express termination rights and was not necessary or obvious; therefore termination was valid and plaintiff's breach of contract and damages…
17 Jul 2019

SHEK KIN PONG AND OTHERS v. FTLIFE INSURANCE CO LTD (formerly known as AGEAS INSURANCE COMPANY (ASIA) LIMITED

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1781
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA739/2016

The express wording of the Side Agreement and Contract (clause 10.8, Clause 3 of Section II and Section III duty to repay) unambiguously applied to termination 'for any reason', therefore termination under clause 10.1 was valid and entitled the Company to demand repayment and to set off; plaintiffs produced no evidence of bad faith or unconscionable exercise of the termination right, so implied terms excluding clawback were rejected.
24 Sept 2018

GRUPO PACIFICA INCORPORADA v. WORLDWIDE MARINE PRODUCT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2640/2014

The 1st defendant was enriched by receipt of US$449,963.60 diverted by fraud and failed to establish either change of position or ministerial receipt as defences because (a) the alleged change of position was by third parties and there was no evidence the 1st defendant itself had irreversibly changed position or accounted inter-company, (b) there was no agency/accounting obligation shown to support ministerial receipt, and (c) the 1st defendant failed to act in a commercially acceptable way; accordingly restitution was ordered.
17 Apr 2018

FUNG CHUEN v. SANDMARTIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 146
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/2017

The court dismissed the stay because the judge below correctly found the plaintiff met the s.740 requirements of good faith and proper purpose, there is no hard rule precluding statutory inspection where related litigation/discovery exists, and the Company did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal sufficient to justify a stay; discretionary considerations did not warrant overturning the inspection order.
11 Apr 2018

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V. AND OTHERS v. PT FIRST MEDIA TBK

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 12
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/2017

The Court held the proper test for extending time is to consider all relevant matters and the overall justice of the case (eschewing Terna Bahrain’s mechanistic emphasis); the courts below erred by over-weighting the fact awards were not set aside at the seat and by failing to give proper weight to the conclusive Singapore Court of Appeal finding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction as to the Additional Parties. Given the strong merits and lack of uncompensable prejudice from the delay, the extension must be granted.
26 Apr 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. CHUN NGAI JEWELLERY DESIGN CO LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. CHUN NGAI JEWELLERY DESIGN CO LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1362/2015

The appeal is dismissed: the court found on the evidence that EY retained title to the Diamond (the Invoice and Supplementary Agreement did not transfer property), IN was not a buyer in possession and Tsang/Tsang's company did not act in good faith such that s27(2) SOGO or s3 FO could divest EY's title. The pawn memorandum was not admitted as fresh evidence. Accordingly the Pawnshop does not have a better title than EY and the Diamond must be returned to EY.