Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Licensing

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2025

MAURIZIO DE GASPERIS AND ANOTHER v. SHANGHAI TANG INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1450/2020

Part 2: D3 breached by failing to provide management accounts but plaintiffs failed to prove the condition precedent (losses below USD5m) so USD150,000 is not payable and only nominal damages awarded; Part 3: the licence provision is an unenforceable agreement to agree because essential terms (exclusivity, territory, sublicensing, distributor rights) were missing and left for future agreement, so no liability for failure to grant licence or inject capital; alternative alleged agreements of 2 and 3 December 2019 were not binding and fail for the same reasons; defendants' late disclosure of pro…
12 Apr 2023

CHENG KA SHING v. BONUS PLUS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 519
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2020

The Court dismissed the appeal: the plaintiff failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove continuous and exclusive factual possession and the requisite animus possidendi over the Disputed Area for the limitation period; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and weighing of evidence were reasonable and not plainly wrong; secondary grounds (licence, illegality, encroachment, concealment) did not alter outcome and need not be resolved further.
20 Jan 2023

CHINA CONCRETE CO LTD v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 211
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL241/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the EPD applied clear statutory criteria (s15(3) APCO) and legitimately required demonstration of BPM; the Board conducted an independent rehearing addressing the matters; alleged legitimate expectation, predetermination, improper motive, unequal treatment, irrelevance of considerations and procedural unfairness lacked sufficient evidential basis; the two‑tier appeal process and available remedy further undermined the grounds for judicial review.
31 Aug 2021

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GUARANTOR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT15/2021

The Court dismissed the setting aside application because the guarantee and arbitration agreement were valid, the arbitrator lawfully confined jurisdiction to the contractual 'sole issue' concerning Funding Schedule Payments, the defendant failed to prove any s89 grounds (invalid agreement, inability to present case, or public policy breach), and due weight is to be given to the US supervisory court's confirmation of the award.
20 May 2020

CHENG KA SHING v. BONUS PLUS CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 828
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA674/2013

Although the Defendant succeeded on the principal issue (Issue 1) and on the counterclaim, the Defendant also raised four separate discrete issues which materially increased the length and cost of the proceedings; applying RHC Order 62 and authorities (notably Re Elgindata), the court reduced the Defendant's recoverable costs by 25% and ordered the Plaintiff to pay 75% of the Defendant's costs, with each party to bear their own costs of the summons.
11 Dec 2017

昆明共願榮景企業管理咨詢有限公司 v. INVISION GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

昆明共願榮景企業管理咨詢有限公司 v. INVISION GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4419/2015

No implied term was to be implied that the plaintiff must cease using the "IN" branding after termination because the Written Agreement could be performed without use of that branding, the parties deliberately addressed some post-termination protections but omitted branding/IP cessation, the necessity/obviousness tests for implication failed, and the defendant admitted the "IN" branding lacked legal protection; therefore the defendant's counterclaim for breach and damages failed.
13 Feb 2017

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV44/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues, while involving statutory interpretation, were highly fact-sensitive, concerned past limited-period conduct of limited monetary value, the applicant ceased the relevant service and failed to demonstrate that the questions were of sufficient general or public importance or properly founded to warrant grant of leave.
26 Aug 2016

LI WAI HUNG CESARIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD

Citation

LI WAI HUNG CESARIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2015

Application for leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance: the grounds before the Court were fact-sensitive and already addressed, the newly raised legal grounds were not pleaded earlier and thus inadmissible at this stage, and belatedly disclosed historical documents lacked explanation and could not be relied upon.
7 Oct 2015

LI WAI HUNG CESARIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD

Citation

LI WAI HUNG CESARIO v. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2015

The judicial review is dismissed: the Board lawfully and reasonably confirmed the Public Officer's refusal to grant a mahjong licence. The 100m measure is a flexible administrative yardstick not a fixed legal requirement; the Board was entitled to adopt the Public Officer's findings, to take police input into account, and provided adequate reasons in context; there was no unlawful restriction of the Board's de novo appellate powers.
27 Feb 2015

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE

Citation

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL27/2014

The court held that 'funeral parlour' under the Regulation includes premises set apart or habitually used for the reception and storage of human remains (excluding ashes) whether or not the remains are to be treated there, and that 'carry on the business of a funeral parlour' includes conduct involving direct and active participation in the management or operation of such premises; the court therefore defined the terms and remitted to the Director to reconsider enforcement against the Pavilion in accordance with the judgment.