Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misleading the court

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

WONG KWOK KI STEPHEN as the joint and several trustee of the property of KWONG KWOK CHI PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. LEE LIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 239
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6382/2020

The solicitor was found to have knowingly misled the Master about counsel’s earliest available trial dates; nevertheless a judge in chambers will not generally entertain an appeal to re‑fix timetabling set at a CMC and the correct procedural route to vary milestone dates is by application under O.25 r.3 to the Master/listing officer; accordingly the appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered no order as to costs between the parties and made wasted costs orders against RL&Co (no legal aid taxation and not payable by defendant) and against the individual solicitor to pay the legally aided taxe…
28 Nov 2025

IP, PATRICK v. CHAN MEANNE CHING MAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1967
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1717/2024

Because the Defendant made serious unfounded allegations, breached the Heads of Agreement, produced altered emails amounting to an attempt to mislead the Court, and then failed to attend or explain, the Court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi and award all costs to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel.
28 Jan 2025

MAXCOLM FINANCE LTD v. LEUNG MA LEE MARY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 126
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2824/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds misconceived the reasons for the original judgment, the court properly found the plaintiff and its solicitors had no reasonable evidential basis for asserting loss of title deeds and thereby misled the court, the belated affirmation and revised valuation did not alter that finding or create a real prospect of success, and procedural rules permit dismissal where affidavits are not credible.
19 Apr 2024

ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1065
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW218/2017

On the balance of probabilities there was an understanding reached on or about 25 April 2018 between the company (Acropolis/Aeso) and the former provisional liquidators that fees would be kept to an upper range of HK$800,000 where possible; that understanding is not a fetter on the court but is a weighty factor which the court (or Taxing Master) must take into account when assessing whether fees claimed were 'properly incurred' and whether specific activities justifying fees above the HK$800,000 limit were necessary and unavoidable.
28 Mar 2024

MAXCOLM FINANCE LTD v. LEUNG MA LEE MARY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 492
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2824/2023

The application was dismissed because the plaintiff and its solicitors materially misled the court by relying on and failing to disclose that the professional valuation adopted a 'loss of title deeds' basis without any evidential foundation or explanation; that omission and the solicitor's conduct breached the paramount duty not to mislead the court and constituted a material abuse of process warranting dismissal and refusal to grant leave for judgment or an order for sale.
5 Nov 2021

鄧對陳

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1659
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP192/2021

Leave to appeal and extension were refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonably likely success; the trial judge's factual findings and legal application (including exclusion of the inheritance and treatment of the matrimonial home) were not plainly wrong and deserved deference.
23 Sept 2019

RE CHU, ALFRED

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2338
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1139/2019

Because both the Law Society and the Secretary for Justice conducted inquiries and accepted the applicant's explanation that the offensive post was made by a friend and the applicant did not mislead the court, the court declined to conduct further inquiry and allowed the admission as the applicant is fit and proper to be admitted.
16 Jul 2018

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. CHEN JIANHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1657
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2482/2014

The appeal was dismissed. The judge held the master did not err in law or act unreasonably in awarding the costs of the contested hearing to the defendants because the plaintiff unreasonably failed to consent to the defendants' amendments at the case management conference despite being put in possession of the proposed amended pleading and sufficient explanation; consequently the plaintiff was the ultimate cause of the hearing and liable for those costs, while the usual order that the defendants bear the costs of and occasioned by the amendments remains appropriate.
17 Jan 2014

ASIA CREDIT CARD PRODUCTION LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

ASIA CREDIT CARD PRODUCTION LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL104/2013

The applicant failed to demonstrate the special or unusual features required for indemnity costs; the Commissioner’s conduct (withholding records for assessment, requesting documents, and quoting the applicant's tax representative) did not amount to unjustified delay or misleading the court; accordingly indemnity costs were refused and costs were awarded on a party and party basis up to 13 January 2014.
14 Jun 2012

SP 對 JBJ

Citation

SP 對 JBJ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV9/2012

The appeal succeeds because the respondent procured substituted service by making materially false statements in her supporting affidavit; substituted service was therefore invalid, the interim and final divorce decrees must be set aside, and the appellant is permitted to file a defence within 28 days; respondent ordered to pay appellant's costs to be assessed under the Legal Aid Rules and documents referred to the Department of Justice for consideration of further action.