Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading and evidence

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

廈門新景地集團有限公司formerly known as 廈門巿鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 888
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants’ proposed grounds raised new legal arguments and factual contentions (including that they would have charged for the 5th defendant's design and that there were uncertainties as to performance) that were not pleaded or evidenced at trial or argued on intermediate appeal; permitting those new, fact‑sensitive points would cause unfairness and fall foul of the Flywin/state‑of‑the‑evidence and not‑considered hurdles.
6 Jan 2023

WHOLE GRAND LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BO FUNG BUILDING

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 2
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM57/2019

Leave to appeal refused because the tribunal correctly considered the alteration which had been raised in evidence, correctly found the manager had power under the DMC to impose the challenged restriction, reasonably concluded the measures were justified on security and nuisance grounds and by the applicant's uncompromising conduct, and because the applicant's intended grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine DDO/BPR issues.
27 Sept 2021

CTRISKS RATING LTD v. DELHAISE PHILIPPE FREDERIC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3108/2016

On the documentary record and oral evidence the court found no misappropriation: the alleged HYBFRM reports did not exist and invoices/emails reflected internal transfer pricing and documentation for related companies rather than transmission of confidential methodology; outside work by Sonia and Philippe was de minimis, caused no loss and did not engage fiduciary duties; claims dismissed and costs ordered accordingly.
23 Jun 2017

TIN LIK v. DEUTCHE BANK AG AND OTHERS

Citation

TIN LIK v. DEUTCHE BANK AG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/2016

Set-offs claimed by the Manager/Trustee were valid and proved: (i) the public announcements and audited/final results (prepared after independent investigations) qualified as conclusive certificates under the Letter Agreement and thus validated certified set-offs; (ii) the SPA clause 9B operated to waive the HK$50m dividend where repatriation (tax clearance) was impossible and that waiver was pleaded and established; (iii) the trial judge's factual inferences about Tin's knowledge were supportable and not disturbed on appeal; (iv) the Manager is not contractually liable for the Trustee's refu…
19 Jan 2015

HO MIU HA formerly t/a GREAT ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL CO v. LI YEE HUNG

Citation

HO MIU HA formerly t/a GREAT ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL CO v. LI YEE HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4193/2012

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the defendant did not show a reasonable prospect of success; the judge acted within judicial discretion and applied correct principles for lis alibi pendens, properly considered affidavit evidence (including acts not pleaded for the purposes of the stay application), correctly concluded the PRC and Hong Kong proceedings involved different subject matters (Agreement breach v employee duty), accepted the plaintiff had a legitimate purpose and juridical advantage in suing in Hong Kong and that enforcement issues could arise in the PRC, and…
25 Oct 2010

XPOLY RECYCLING LTD v. GOLD LEADER ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

XPOLY RECYCLING LTD v. GOLD LEADER ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5241/2008

The court found the defendant's pleaded case contained significant evidential and particularity defects such that summary judgment was premature; accordingly the summary judgment was set aside and leave to defend granted, while the Master's dismissal of the security for costs application was confirmed and costs relating to the O.14 application were to be in the cause.
29 Sept 1987

RICHARD ELLIS LTD v. VAN HONG TUON

Citation

RICHARD ELLIS LTD v. VAN HONG TUON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV76/1987

An estate agent cannot claim commission from both vendor and purchaser where the agent has acted for the vendor and has not shown full, explicit and informed disclosure to and consent from both principals; the plaintiffs failed to prove such disclosure and consent and therefore could not enforce the alleged contract for a second commission; appeal allowed and claim dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

廈門新景地集團有限公司formerly known as 廈門巿鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

WHOLE GRAND LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BO FUNG BUILDING

CTRISKS RATING LTD v. DELHAISE PHILIPPE FREDERIC AND OTHERS

TIN LIK v. DEUTCHE BANK AG AND OTHERS

HO MIU HA formerly t/a GREAT ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL CO v. LI YEE HUNG

XPOLY RECYCLING LTD v. GOLD LEADER ENTERPRISES LTD

RICHARD ELLIS LTD v. VAN HONG TUON