Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procuring breach of contract

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2025

DUBAI (INTERNATIONAL) DJIBOUTI FZE v. CHINA MERCHANTS PORT HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA504/2025

The 2025 Statement of Claim was struck out because it amounted to an abuse of process: the pleaded claims are the same cause of action or substantially overlap with the 2018 Action, the New Pleas amount to further particulars rather than a distinct cause of action, DID offered no good reason to maintain a separate action and had breached the Aldi Stores guideline; accordingly the court exercised its discretionary strike-out power and dismissed the 2025 Action.
5 Sept 2025

FLAME ASIA RESOURCES PTE LTD v. FULL IDEA TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4139
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1483/2025

The Court continued the interim worldwide freezing and disclosure order for six months because Flame demonstrated a good arguable case on unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, showed that there were insufficient assets in Hong Kong to satisfy the arbitral awards while material assets existed abroad, established a real risk of dissipation based on the timing and nature of the Three Transfers and the defendants' conduct, and because the balance of convenience favoured continuation to preserve the claimant's ability to enforce the awards.
25 Jul 2024

ALPHA & LEADER ASSOCIATES LTD v. VICTORY MEGA TRADING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 709
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP57/2024

The Court refused leave to appeal because the defendant has no reasonable prospect of success: the Judge correctly treated the February 2021 hearing as inter partes so no duty of full and frank disclosure arose; the Judge did not err in finding a good arguable case on the pleaded causes of action or in her assessment of the evidence (including Mr Lu's affirmation and the effect of the HCA 1501/2017 settlement); the Judge properly exercised discretion to refuse late evidence under Ladd v Marshall; and the balance of convenience and identity issues were properly addressed. Accordingly the summo…
13 Dec 2023

CHINA CONCRETE COMPANY LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2282
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA997/2022

The amended statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out: the ASOC fails to plead essential elements for each tort (no pleaded actual breach of contract, no pleaded unlawful means actionable against third parties, no sufficient facts to infer malice or dishonest motive, and no particularised facts supporting misfeasance intent); declaratory relief amounting to a declaration of non-criminality was inappropriate and prejudicial while criminal prosecutions under the APCO were pending; accordingly the SOC/ASOC are struck out and the civil action dismissed.
10 Nov 2023

CHEN HONGQING v. ASIA CEMENT CORPORATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1304/2017

The Statement of Claim was struck out because the plaintiff had repeatedly advanced multiple, contradictory and irreconcilable sworn cases in different proceedings concerning the same rights over the subject shares, conduct that amounted to an abuse of process; no formulated or viable amendment was before the court to cure the abuse, so striking out was proper despite other grounds not being independently decisive.
31 Jan 2023

HON FUNG v. FRANK DOMINICK AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 245
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1260/2019

The appeal is dismissed because the procuring breach claim fails as the plaintiff did not plead the contractual terms allegedly breached nor the director's specific acts of inducement or breach of personal duties required to attract personal liability; the knowing receipt claim fails because there is no pleaded or evidential transfer of the shares or proceeds to the 1st Defendant and the requisite trust property and receipt elements are absent; both claims do not disclose a reasonable cause of action and are bound to fail.
24 Apr 2020

LEUNG WING SZE WINS AND ANOTHER v. LI OI LAM otherwise known as SARA LI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 238
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2022/2014

Leave to appeal dismissed because the proposed grounds were largely factual rehashes lacking pinpointed misapprehension of evidence or arguable points of law; no reasonable prospect of success was shown under s63A(2) DCO; District Court has jurisdiction to hear the copyright/tort claims within monetary limits; the defendants were entitled to judgment on their counterclaim and the plaintiffs' leave application was vexatious, warranting dismissal and an award of costs on an indemnity basis.
20 Feb 2019

ASIA JET PARTNERS LTD v. WILD WING LLC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA73/2018

Service at the Wanchai address was not valid and cannot be cured by reliance on acknowledgement because Order 12 r7 preserves challenge to irregular service; Court will not use Order 2 r1 to bypass the statutory leave requirement under Order 11; Plaintiff failed to show a good arguable case under Order 11 r1(1)(f) because (i) no good arguable case procuring breach or conspiracy given chronology and suspensions, (ii) double actionability not displaced and Delaware law likely bars manager liability, and (iii) insufficient evidence of damage sustained in Hong Kong; accordingly leave to serve out…
26 Mar 2018

黃碩雄對范荏愷

Citation

[2018] HKCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV221/2016

Appeals dismissed because (1) alleged age discrimination is not a freestanding statutory cause in Hong Kong; (2) inducement/procuring breach is legally inapplicable where no termination/loss flowed and conduct was within chairman's legitimate role; (3) alleged harassment did not satisfy the required elements of repetition and foreseeable distress; (4) litigation statements and court evidence are protected by privilege and PDPO exemptions and privacy claims must be brought in the District Court; and (5) appellant improperly sought to raise new factual allegations and grounds on appeal which ca…
15 Feb 2018

SOUTH CHINA MEDIA LTD AND OTHERS v. KWOK, YEE NING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 194
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1751/2015

The court found on the evidence that Kwok acted as a de facto director and fiduciary of Whiz Kids, diverted three Dr-Max contracts and allowed unauthorised use of the Magazine logo and name, and breached the non-solicitation covenant; Greens PR and Shen assisted and procured those breaches and acted dishonestly (including deliberate blindness); accordingly equitable compensation and damages were awarded in quantified sums with interest and costs, and Kwok's counterclaim was dismissed.