Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Material non-disclosure

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

CHOW PO TAI v. CHEN CAO LIYAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2379/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show reasonable prospects of success; the judge was entitled to find material non-disclosure on the relationship between P and D1 and on the transfer of HK$2,715,927.08 based on the evidence, and the refusals to continue or re-grant the ex parte order and to grant interim-interim relief were within the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion and not plainly wrong.
13 Feb 2026

DONG YOUQUN AND ANOTHER v. WANG PING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA814/2025

The ex parte Mareva/proprietary injunction was obtained abusively because there was no genuine urgency or secrecy and because applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts (MNDs 1–6 proven); accordingly the injunction is discharged and a renewal/re-grant is refused; costs follow the event with a certificate of two counsel.
6 Feb 2026

AMP RESOURCES LTD v. INDAGRO SA

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 784
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1487/2025

The Court concluded there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement under PRC law because the applicability of Civil Code Article 490 to the parties' email and draft contract exchanges raises a legitimate issue for the Beijing Court; there was no material non‑disclosure in the ex parte application; substituted service was justified and the Defendant's summons to set it aside is dismissed; accordingly the continuation of the ex parte injunction is warranted and costs are awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
20 Oct 2025

CHAN KWOK KUEN v. LAI YAT HO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP300/2025

Ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunctions and wide director/management restraints were discharged because ss.728-730 do not permit a member to obtain monetary relief for reflective loss (any restitution or damages belong to the company), the pleaded injunctions did not correspond to the specific conduct alleged, and there was material non-disclosure at the ex parte hearing; a narrower interlocutory injunction was appropriate against the 1st Defendant to restrain drawing cheques below HK$30,000 without the Plaintiff's consent.
17 Oct 2025

WANG WEIQING v. ZHUO YIHAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/2022

The proprietary injunction as to the TV6 Address was discharged because the plaintiff unjustifiably proceeded ex parte in respect of Binance and committed serious material non-disclosure (not shown to be innocent) about pre-action correspondence and the pooled-hot-wallet nature of TV6 and potential bona fide purchaser defence; the court declined to re-grant the proprietary interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff failed to justify the nondisclosure and did not demonstrate means to honour undertaking as to damages; discharge delayed 14 days to permit further steps; disclosure orders unde…
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…
5 Sept 2025

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS & SOLUTIONS LTD v. WANG YAFENG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 821
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV415/2024

The dismissal of the Beijing court's jurisdictional challenge was not a material omission for purposes of the plaintiff's continuing duty of disclosure because non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the parties' agreement meant the defendant bore a heavy burden to show strong or powerful reasons to displace Hong Kong jurisdiction; the mainland proceedings had not progressed to a stage that materially affected the dispute at the time of the default judgment application, therefore the First Summons grounds failed and the appeal was dismissed.
28 Aug 2025

PEKING UNIVERSITY RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LTD v. PEKING UNIVERSITY RESOURCES GROUP CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1470/2022

Material non-disclosure by the plaintiff in the ex parte application was inexcusable and egregious; although the plaintiff's case was weak and amendments and late evidence were undesirable, the conduct did not justify indemnity costs; on balance the proper sanction was to vary the costs order nisi and make it absolute awarding costs to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants on a common fund basis (appeal costs taxed on common fund basis with certificate for two counsel), and costs of the present application to be on a common fund basis (certificate for one counsel).
6 Aug 2025

ORION ENGINEERED CARBONS GMBH v. GAN YUQI (ALSO KNOWN AS GAN YU QI) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3328
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA322/2025

The injunctions against the 36th Defendant were discharged because the Plaintiff and its solicitors breached the duty of full and frank disclosure by failing to disclose extensive correspondence and material developments showing a plausible non‑fraudulent explanation, failed to effect proper service despite an undertaking and leave to serve out of jurisdiction, and treated the matter as ex parte when it was not appropriate to do so; costs were awarded to the 36th Defendant and the application to discharge the cross‑undertaking was refused as premature.
11 Jul 2025

北京誠義豪泰投資管理有限公司 v. ZHANG YUPING (also known as CHEUNG YU PING)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3002
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT1/2025

The court granted an interim stay because the leave application would likely be rendered nugatory absent a stay given the realistic risk of asset dissipation (including access requests by companies associated with the defendant and recent transfers of shares), at least one ground of appeal appeared to have arguable prospects, and any prejudice to the defendant would be short-lived because the stay is interim pending a prompt paper disposal of the leave application.