Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Listing rules compliance

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. MAK KWONG YIU, CHAN LAI YEE, WONG SHUK ON, LEE YICK MING

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 20
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2025

The Court held that the defendants' scheme to interpose Gransing as a buffer to conceal that CISL was the actual placing agent constituted dishonest means supporting conspiracy to defraud: viewed realistically the placing and sub‑placing arrangements formed composite transactions engaging the Listing Rules and/or impeded the Stock Exchange in its public supervisory duty; proof of a sham was not required and undisclosed conflicts together with deliberate concealment satisfied the dishonesty and causation elements.
13 Aug 2025

CHINA PUTIAN FOOD HOLDING LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3609
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL199/2025

The injunction was refused because the Court was not satisfied the appeal had real prospects of success on any pleaded ground; the LRC had lawfully and properly considered the relevant materials including late financial results and the factors under Rule 13.24; there was no reasonably arguable case of fettered discretion; and the balance of convenience favoured the Exchange because granting an injunction would harm the investing public while the Company’s asserted prejudice was speculative and remediable.
27 Jun 2025

CHINA PUTIAN FOOD HOLDING LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL199/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the LRC's decision disclosed no arguable public law error: the LRC reasonably found only RG1 had been met while RG2 and RG3 remained unfulfilled due to heavy indebtedness, substantial outstanding steps and uncertainty over debt restructuring and future viability; the procedural complaints were without merit given adequate notice and opportunity and the Company's own late publication of financials; denial of an extension was a lawful exercise of discretion under GL95-18.
6 Feb 2025

CHAN NAP KEE JOSEPH AND ANOTHER v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 557
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1271/2024

The application for leave failed because the Applicants did not identify any reasonably arguable public law error; the LRC had properly considered relevant factors and reasonably concluded the breaches were serious and persistent, justifying PII statements, and the challenge amounted to an impermissible merits re-run rather than a viable irrationality or illegality ground.
8 Jan 2025

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LI WING SANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 190
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2068/2020

On the agreed facts the 2nd Respondent breached multiple duties as a director and supervisor by failing to recover a large related-party debt, failing to obtain control and oversight of a material subsidiary, failing to cause impairment provisions and permitting publication of misleading interim results; his conduct amounted to gross negligence and incompetence (but not dishonesty) and warranted a middle‑bracket disqualification; accordingly a disqualification order under s.214(2)(d) for 7 years and payment of costs HK$250,000 was appropriate and was ordered.
24 Jan 2024

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LAM WO PING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2328/2019

On the agreed facts the company’s affairs were conducted in a manner engaging s.214(1)(b),(c) and (d); the 4th respondent as CFO breached duties of care, skill and diligence by failing to verify and disclose extensive deposit pledges, but having regard to his limited role, cooperation, admission of liability, mitigating factors and personal circumstances the appropriate and proportionate remedy was a 2‑year disqualification confined as agreed together with a costs order of HK$500,000 payable on or before 6 March 2024.
27 Nov 2023

FAN REN DA ANTHONY AND ANOTHER v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2932
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1211/2023

The Court held the LRC provided adequate, intelligible reasons; it was rationally open to the LRC to find that the applicants, as Audit Committee members, breached duties under Rule 3.08 and their Directors' Undertakings by failing to ensure adequate internal controls and by endorsing the FY18/19 Interim Report without properly addressing auditors' expressed concerns about ECL; reliance on management or expert commentary did not absolve the non‑delegable supervisory obligations; public censure and mandated training were proportionate; leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and the s…
13 Jun 2023

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHEN LI-JUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1538
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP36/2021

On the agreed facts in the Carecraft schedules the business and affairs of NAH were conducted in a manner involving defalcation, fraud, misfeasance and/or other misconduct under s214(1)(b)-(d) SFO; the 8th, 10th and 11th Respondents were partly responsible through acts or omissions (failure to supervise, exercise independent judgment and to investigate serious unexplained transactions); accordingly disqualification orders were justified and proportionate: 8th respondent 3 years; 10th respondent 20 months (with carve-outs for five named companies); 11th respondent 20 months (with agreed carve-…
15 Nov 2022

SINO ENERGY INTERNATIONAL GROUP HOLDINGS LTD v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL686/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the LRC's decision was grounded on the company's clear failure to satisfy the Resumption Guidance (RG1, RG2 and RG3) by the prescribed remedial deadline and at the time of review; the comment about unpublished investigation reports was factually correct and did not amount to procedural unfairness or irrationality, and there were no exceptional circumstances under GL95-18 warranting an extension of time.
26 Feb 2021

BOLINA HOLDING CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 460
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2328/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review refused: the Listing Review Committee lawfully and reasonably upheld cancellation under Rule 6.01A because the Company failed to demonstrate fulfillment of key resumption guidance (publication of outstanding audited accounts, withdrawal of winding-up order and adequate market disclosure), failed to show that COVID-19 constituted an exceptional circumstance under GL95-18 para 19, and failed to establish sufficient certainty of creditor support for a restructuring; the decision was not irrational.