Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non‑disclosure/misrepresentation

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2025

QBE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI INSURANCE LTD v. SINOCITY INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1376
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2024/2022

The oral application for leave to amend was dismissed as an abuse of process and because the proposed amendments were bound to fail and would convert a pure construction issue suitable for Order 14A into an evidence‑sensitive non‑disclosure and causation case that could not be sustained; the application was also inexcusable late and prejudicial, and was refused with costs.
12 Feb 2015

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS

Citation

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2014

The Court of Appeal held the judge erred in making a final summary determination on the construction of Clause 19(e) because there were substantive factual disputes material to the contractual background that could not be resolved without a trial; accordingly the stay order of 3 January 2014 (which purported to preserve the Settlement Agreement for implementation) was set aside and replaced by a temporary stay pending fresh legal proceedings to be filed by Ben, Nora or Pat within 28 days (with liberty to apply for extension).
3 Jan 2014

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS

Citation

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2155/2011

The court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of HCA 2155/2011 (including the Order 14 application) based on the unimpeached global Settlement Agreement even without an express stay term; Recital B and Clause 48 do not prevent the court ordering a stay; Clause 19(e) applies only to option rights that are found to be presently existing by the investigating accountants and does not cover the expired Yau Wing Option; the plaintiff cannot rescind the Settlement Agreement only as to Ian and Tim while keeping it as to other contracting parties; accordingly a stay was granted to permit perfecting and i…
19 Sept 2007

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW677/2004

Given the proximity of the proposed sale to an adverse judgment, the lack of readily available information about completion and the circumstances suggesting risk of asset dissipation, it was reasonable to seek the ex parte Mareva injunction; accordingly respondent must pay petitioner's costs of the ex parte application. The inter partes hearing required respondent's attendance for appropriate exceptions and therefore there is no order as to costs for that hearing. The respondent must pay two thirds of petitioner's costs of this costs application, to be taxed if not agreed.
12 Feb 2003

FEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation

FEMS INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL99/1997

The court held the 35 interrogatories were not essential for the fair disposal of the action or for saving costs because the matters sought were covered by the plaintiff's witness statement and disclosed documents, could be tested at trial by cross‑examination, and many requests amounted to fishing or required undue research; accordingly the interrogatories served without order were withdrawn and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
7 Jul 2001

MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

MINTON OPTIC INDUSTRY CO. LTD. v. MULTISPARK LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9619/2000

The ex parte Mareva injunctions were discharged because the plaintiffs breached critical undertakings (not procuring the HK$6,000,000 bank guarantee and failing to serve supporting materials promptly), made material misstatements and non-disclosures in ex parte proceedings (including incorrect assertions about an existing judgment debt and timing of resignations), and failed to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify fresh Mareva injunctions; accordingly the interlocutory relief could not be maintained.
11 May 1982

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE

Citation

MARQUIS TRADING CO (a firm) v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL47/1980

The judge exercised discretion to allow the defendants to re-amend their Points of Defence because the proposed particulars sufficiently pleaded the conspiracies and privity required by The Dias and Ord.18 r12(1)(b), the Amelia allegation was not a recent invention but linked evidentially to the earlier-pleaded Starter matter by similar-fact principles, there was no irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs, and the public interest in allowing a potentially valid fraud defence justified the late amendment.
27 Nov 1970

R.V. KEWALSONS (A FIRM) v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

R.V. KEWALSONS (A FIRM) v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV6/1970

The policy must be construed in context; Section A expressly described insured stock as textiles/garments and Section B's reference to "goods in trust" is to goods relating to the assured's trade. Jewellery left gratuitously by visiting clients was not in the contemplation of the parties, would materially increase the risk, and therefore did not fall within the cover; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the portion of the judgment awarding for jewellery is set aside.