Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-disclosure of material facts

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2022

AGENCY FOR POLICY COORDINATION ON STATE PROPERTY AND OTHERS v. BATBOLD SUKHBAATAR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2153/2020

Given the dismissal of the Mongolian proceedings and uncontested expert and documentary evidence demonstrating that the prosecutors lacked authority to bring the underlying claim at the time of commencement, together with material non-disclosure and failure to update the court, the interlocutory injunction was properly discharged and the Originating Summons struck out for want of authority to sue.
12 Apr 2022

LYH v. YHKB

Citation

[2022] HKFC 81
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2164/2009

Leave to appeal was refused because the husband failed to show any arguable ground with reasonable prospects of success: the trial judge’s factual findings (including intentional non-disclosure and timing of negotiations) were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; the husband’s submissions were re‑runs or new points not raised at trial and insufficient to overturn the broad‑brush equal sharing applied under MPPO given the parties’ contributions and long marriage; consequently there is no arguable appeal and no basis to grant a stay; costs awarded to the wife.
24 Apr 2009

"ZHU SHENG 2" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "ZHU SHENG 2"

Citation

"ZHU SHENG 2" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "ZHU SHENG 2"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ68/2007

The ex parte extension was set aside because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the writ during its initial 12 month period, relied on an unjustified assumption that the vessel was absent from Hong Kong despite registration and presence, and their affidavit evidence omitted material particulars such that the extension order was improperly obtained.
6 Mar 2009

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRADEPOWER (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. TRADEPOWER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to prove, with credible admissible evidence, that the shares in Tradepower HK were worth in excess of HK$1,000,000 and the legal issues advanced did not raise questions of great general or public importance where the governing test (Freeman v Pope) was not in dispute.
14 Oct 1999

WAH NAM HOLDINGS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. EXCEL NOBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

WAH NAM HOLDINGS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. EXCEL NOBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8974/1999

The court declined to discharge the interlocutory injunction against the 8th Defendant because (a) the 1st–7th Defendants were not shown to be adversely affected as the injunction did not prevent payment into the agreed escrow account, (b) the Plaintiffs' material non-disclosure related to their financial position and therefore had minimal relevance to the injunction against the 8th Defendant, and (c) the injunction preserved the pre-existing status quo and the 8th Defendant did not seek discharge; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to continue the injunction.
24 Jun 1987

CITIBANK N.A. v. EXPRESS SHIP MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CITIBANK N.A. v. EXPRESS SHIP MANAGEMENT SERVICE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/1987

The withheld information about attempts to recover transferred funds was not material to the ex parte judges' weighing operation because the beneficiaries' consent was required for refunds and no actual refunds had occurred; therefore the non-disclosure did not justify discharging the Mareva injunctions and the appeal must be allowed to reinstate/continue the freezing orders.
23 Sept 1985

OTB INTERNATIONAL CREDIT CARD LTD v. THE RESORT EXCHANGE LTD

Citation

OTB INTERNATIONAL CREDIT CARD LTD v. THE RESORT EXCHANGE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5278/1985

The court found the Plaintiff had relied solely on unauthorised card transactions as the basis for relief, had not misled the court as to that basis, and had produced sufficient evidence (affidavits, telex, letters) suggesting substantial unauthorised billings and a real risk of dissipation; the Defendant failed to produce reliable evidence to show the injunction should be discharged or that there was no risk of dissipation; accordingly the application to discharge was dismissed and the Mareva injunction continued.
11 Feb 1983

PETER OSWAID SCALES AND ANOTHER v. WILLIAM H H WONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

PETER OSWAID SCALES AND ANOTHER v. WILLIAM H H WONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/1983

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and discharged the ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders because the Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of fraud sufficient to infer a real risk of dissipation or destruction of evidence, and there was material non-disclosure of facts which undermined the basis for the orders; fraud must be pleaded in the writ and the available evidence did not justify continuation of the injunctions.
11 May 1982

LAERTES CORPORATION (a firm) v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE

Citation

LAERTES CORPORATION (a firm) v. ASSOCIATED BANKERS INSURANCE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4665/1979

The court allowed the defendants to re-amend because the proposed conspiracy and non-disclosure pleas met the required pleading standards (parties, agreement, objects and overt acts or necessary particulars of scuttling and privity), the fraud allegations were not a recent invention given prior notice and linkage to the Starter incident, no irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs was shown, similar-fact evidence rendered the Amelia allegation evidentially relevant, and public interest and procedural fairness justified the late amendment.