Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑disclosure

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2025

LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE LTD v. CHAN SHUK FAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP988/2024

The summons for a stay was dismissed because the Defendant failed to demonstrate an appeal with strong prospects or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay; the statutory and factual matrix supports the original finding that material representations were required and the Plaintiff would be prejudiced by a stay; costs ordered to Plaintiff.
9 Jun 2025

LEE CHARLES GOON LOK v. LEE KWOK CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2366/2015

The court refused the proposed self-dealing/fair-dealing and undervaluation amendments and dismissed the valuation evidence summons because the amendments were inordinately late without satisfactory explanation, their admission would cause prejudice and unduly enlarge the scope of the already fixed trial, and the market valuation evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the pleaded causes of action. Unopposed amendments were allowed. Costs orders were made against the Plaintiff and jointly and severally against Plaintiff and D3 for the valuation summons.
28 Mar 2025

AHMED NOOR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL107/2025

There was no reasonably arguable procedural unfairness in the Director's non‑disclosure because the Applicant personally knew the essential allegation (from the 2006 interview and subsequent correspondence), the materials provided were adequate for the purposes of the NRD assessment, further disclosure would not have produced substantive prejudice, and the long unexplained delay militated against granting an extension of time or leave to apply for judicial review; accordingly leave is refused and no relief granted.
21 Mar 2025

LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE LTD v. CHAN SHUK FAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP988/2024

Defendant's answers to the online declarations were false or non-disclosures of material facts relating to a named driver's prior convictions; the Defendant provided no basis for her belief that the answers were true; accordingly under s10(3) of the Ordinance the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that it may avoid the policy.
22 Nov 2024

LAM MUI as the lawful administratrix of the estate of WONG SHING, deceased AND ANOTHER v. FRONTRICH INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA34/2021

P2's deliberate concealment of P1's death, dishonest explanations, inordinate delay and opportunistic/persistent litigation conduct constituted special and unusual features and abusive conduct warranting indemnity costs; the 2024 Summons is dismissed with indemnity costs and the Defendants' costs of resisting the Injunction Application incurred after 15 May 2021 are to be borne by P2 on an indemnity basis; the screenshots relied on by P2 are inadmissible without leave.
26 Jul 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V. FERGURSON HONG KONG LIMITED trading as NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1221
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no interest of justice to hear it; the indemnity costs order and order for summary assessment and immediate payment were justified by the plaintiff's deliberate material non-disclosure and abuse of the ex-parte procedure, the procedural default in failing to seek timely variation, and the court's familiarity with the interlocutory conduct which permitted summary assessment.
7 Jun 2024

MINTING DOME HOLDING LLC v. DENG JIE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1202/2023

Interpreting the exclusive jurisdiction clause by applying PRC Civil Code art.142 and considering related clauses (including the entire agreement clause), the phrase covers disputes 'arising out of and in connection with' the Settlement Agreement; the Present Causes of Action fall within that scope. No strong cause was shown to refuse a stay (fraud allegations did not directly impeach the jurisdiction clause; multiplicity risk was minimal; uncertainty about PRC recognition of crypto-assets was not decisive). Accordingly, the application to set aside leave was dismissed and a permanent stay of…
1 Mar 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 25
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

The court found the defendant's request for extension of the costs order beyond the Costs Order Nisi was not justified except to include any reserved costs as a precaution, but concluded that immediate summary assessment and payment of the defendant's costs should be ordered because the plaintiff's conduct involved serious non-disclosure and abuse of ex-parte procedure, the interlocutory costs were severable and identifiable, and justice required the successful party not be kept out of its costs pending trial.
8 Nov 2023

TSAI LEE TING AND ANOTHER v. BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA102/2023

The court found the plaintiffs had a reasonably arguable appeal on the identified grounds, and there was a real risk of asset dissipation by D8, D9 and D10 such that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if no stay were granted; accordingly the court continued the Mareva injunctions against D8, D9 and D10 pending determination of the appeal and made costs in the cause with certificate for two counsel.
25 Sept 2023

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. YEUNG SING HEI

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2394
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1143/2023

Given the unchallenged evidence that Yeung was not the vehicle user, had registered the vehicle for another, did not have the keys and that the vehicle was lent to others, those undisclosed facts were material under s.10(5); Zurich proved it would not have issued the Policies on the same terms if informed, therefore under s.10(3) Zurich was entitled to a declaration avoiding the Policies.