Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privilege

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2026

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WONG KONG HEUNG formerly known as WONG KWONG HEUNG CANDY

Citation

[2026] HKDC 181
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4781/2022

The leave application was dismissed because the defendant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay in applying for leave to appeal out of time and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the discovery decision was a case management exercise of judicial discretion not shown to be plainly wrong; the allegations of tampering and bias were unsupported and rejected; costs were ordered against the defendant.
31 Dec 2020

MAKHSSIAN TRAJAN VAHE v. MAYER BROWN JSM, MAYER BROWN INTERNATIONAL LLP alias MAYER BROWN. SOLICITOR ASSOSIATE SIMON AU MING, AVOCATE SOLICITOR, DAVID MCKELLAR

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA934/2020

The claim was struck out and the action dismissed because the pleaded defamatory statements were not made by the defendants and were not attributable to them, the court order wording is an act of the court covered by absolute privilege, the plaintiff's allegations of forgery and other serious misconduct were unsupported and inherently implausible, and the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process (including effectively re‑litigation of matters previously disposed of).
25 Sept 2020

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION v. SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 827
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4497/2017

The Intended Party's notice of appeal and ex parte applications were dismissed because she lacks locus standi as prior decisions conclusively denied intervention and were not disclosed to the duty judge; the Duty Judge's Leave was merely procedural and did not confer standing; undisclosed privileged documents cannot be considered without violating natural justice; Registrar Lui's orders of 5 May 2020 (including striking out the defence and entering judgment) therefore stand and the Intended Party's applications are abusive and dismissed with indemnity costs on a nisi basis.
9 Oct 2018

YANG FOO-OI by LEUNG PING CHIU, ROY her next friend v. WAI WAI CHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2278
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1739/2010

The court dismissed both discovery applications because the applicants failed to show the requested material was relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the Cross-Applications or for saving costs; the court accepted the solicitor’s sworn assertion that redactions in attendance notes concerned irrelevant and privileged matters and there was no sufficient basis to inspect them; the transfer and corporate documents were not shown to have been referred to in the relevant affidavit or to be necessary; documents concerning 8 Mount Austin Road and post-stroke instructions were of little relev…
8 Feb 2017

ENRICH FUTURE LTD AND OTHERS v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)

Citation

ENRICH FUTURE LTD AND OTHERS v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2011

The court declined to order discovery because the references in the Yen affidavits did not constitute direct references to the specific documents sought, the production was not necessary for the fair disposal of the setting aside application nor for saving costs under O 24 r 13, many documents were privileged or non-existent, and ordering disclosure would be disproportionate and oppressive; accordingly the summons for discovery was dismissed and costs were ordered against the defendant.
14 Jan 2016

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份 AND ANOTHER v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2015

D1 failed to demonstrate a legal interest directly related to the subject matter of the Striking Out Summonses under either limb of Order 15 r 6(2)(b), and no basis existed to exercise the court's inherent jurisdiction to allow intervention; the Striking Out Summonses did not need to be served on D1 because they did not affect his legal rights; intervention would overburden and complicate interlocutory proceedings and is refused.
15 Aug 2014

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2012

The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie basis that the defendants' personal email accounts contained relevant, necessary evidence of conspiracy and the proposed orders for wholesale e-disclosure were disproportionate and oppressive; accordingly orders for disclosure of personal emails of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants and the 2nd defendant's accounting documents were dismissed as fishing; however the 4th defendant was ordered to disclose bank statements and vouchers of personal accounts with transactions of $100,000 or above from 1 January 2009 to account closure within 28 days as a…
8 May 2013

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

Citation

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2192/2012

O.24 r.11 applications are subject to O.24 r.13 which requires the court to consider whether production is necessary for the fair disposal of the cause or for saving costs; that inquiry permits a broad discretionary assessment of the degree of relevance/import of the document and potential prejudice, and the judge did not err in refusing production of the insurance policy on those grounds.
20 Feb 2009

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS

Citation

ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP842/2007

Court found material non-disclosure in the ex parte application insofar as the Anton Piller order swept unduly wide by including many 'Group Companies' and by requiring disclosure of cash takings of Group Companies the defendant had no responsibility for; other non-disclosure allegations (Wanchai office) and execution complaints were not made out. Given the significance of the nondisclosures and disproportional breadth, the court exercised its discretion to discharge the Anton Piller order and dismiss the inspection summons and ordered parties to proceed with ordinary discovery, leaving defen…
25 Apr 2007

ANBEST ELECTRONIC LTD v. CGU INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE PLC (formerly GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASIA LTD)

Citation

ANBEST ELECTRONIC LTD v. CGU INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE PLC (formerly GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASIA LTD)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV17/2007

The judge's discretionary case-management determinations were correct: the plaintiff's credible financial evidence rebutted any reason to believe it could not pay costs, so security for costs was refused; the discovery requests were irrelevant, amounted to a fishing expedition or sought privileged material and therefore were properly refused; the Court of Appeal will not disturb those exercise of discretion.