Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder/intervention

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

COSIMO BORRELLI AND OTHERS v. LINKLATERS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP410/2025

The Court found Linklaters acted for SIL and CNG under separate retainers (not a joint retainer); many Category 2 documents belong to both SIL and CNG and SIL is entitled to copies; common interest privilege and limited waiver meant privilege was preserved only for the arbitration purpose and did not prevent SIL obtaining copies of its documents; Linklaters must produce the listed documents except those from the period when it acted solely for CNG (up to 10 December 2020) or documents already produced; CNG permitted to intervene; Receivers’ application adjourned sine die; specified costs orde…
8 Jan 2025

CREDIT ONE FINANCE LTD v. ZHONG CHAOXIA

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 270
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP831/2024

Credit One was equitably subrogated to the prior acquisition mortgage (SCB) to the extent of the monies it paid (about HK$3.5 million) and an acquisition mortgage (and subrogated rights) has priority over any alleged beneficial owner; therefore the Intended 2nd Defendant cannot show an entitlement to possession superior to Credit One and joinder must be dismissed; the registered notice must be vacated.
10 Oct 2024

PA SAM NANG AND OTHERS v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1020/2015

Joinder was granted because Ms Chiu satisfied the wide interest threshold under Order 15 r6(2), HSBC's amended defence expressly raised her competing claim to ownership so her participation is necessary for effective resolution and case management, the Court of First Instance is an appropriate forum to determine ownership given the bank's interpleader-like position and the complexity and timing of the dispute, and the joinder would not cause undue prejudice or delay.
31 Dec 2019

VITALY ORLOV v. MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1331/2017

The application to intervene was dismissed because the intervener failed to show intervention was necessary to ensure all matters could be effectually and completely determined in the Hong Kong proceedings: the Hong Kong remedy (personal buyout order) and its valuation process differ in substance and date from the English proceedings (damages/quantum meruit), Tugushev would not be bound by any Hong Kong valuation, and the English court is the appropriate forum for his claim; accordingly joinder was not just or convenient.
31 Dec 2019

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY ORLOV AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2753/2017

Application to intervene refused: Tugushev did not satisfy the court that his joinder was necessary or that it would be just and convenient to determine his asserted common issues in these Hong Kong proceedings given the different nature of the remedies, different valuation dates and that he would not be bound by any valuation conducted here, creating insufficient justification for intervention under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b).
12 Dec 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH AND ANOTHER v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1867/2017

The court dismissed both the s765 restoration and the s42 rectification/removal applications because the applicants failed to establish it would be 'just' to restore the Company given deliberate and opaque deregistration conduct, fabricated and inconsistent evidence, lack of adequate disclosure on who funded and instructed post-dissolution litigation, and because rectification/removal would improperly achieve the practical effects of restoration despite the court finding restoration not just; Jaldhi was permitted to be joined as a party.
12 Dec 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP76/2019

Relief under both routes was refused: restoration under s.765 was not just because applicants produced fabricated, inconsistent and back‑dated evidence and the deregistration was likely a deliberate device to evade liabilities; rectification/removal under s.42 was inappropriate as a back‑door to restoration and the discretionary balance did not favor the applicants; however Jaldhi was properly joined as it had direct interests. Costs ordered against applicants on indemnity scale.
10 Sept 2019

PACIFIC ANDES ENTERPRISES (BVI) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1039
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP71/2019

The order of 15 March 2019 expressly stated it was 'until further order' and continued an earlier ex parte order, so it was not a final sealed order rendering the court functus; DHCJ Liu was therefore entitled to grant interim stay and sealing orders to preserve the position pending determination of THE's arguable joinder application; the renewed application for leave to appeal was not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
28 Aug 2019

WYM v. LYW AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKFC 221
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14114/2015

The Intervener failed to demonstrate any legitimate reason, change of circumstances or sufficient cause to set aside a consent Joinder Order or to justify a stay; the Joinder Directions, obtained by consent and complying with the TL v. ML procedure, must stand; the Family Court is an appropriate forum to determine beneficial interests and manage any consequent order for sale under MPPO with proceeds dealt with by the Family Court; costs follow the event.
23 Nov 2018

WO CHUN WAH v. CHAU KWEI YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 789
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV271/2017

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the trial judge's discretionary order of no order as to costs between the plaintiff and the Board because the judge lawfully exercised his discretion under Order 62 r5 by considering the Board's legitimate filtering/public interest role, the plaintiff's exaggerated claim and the Board's litigation conduct; there was no error of principle warranting interference. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction to award costs against the Board exists (as held in Jiang Zhong) but did not need to decide the respondent's renewed jurisdictional challenge…