Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S.21 evidence ordinance

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

APOGEE CORPORATION TAIWAN BRANCH v. TUOBAN TRADING LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5971
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1493/2025

Order for disclosure granted because plaintiff established a proprietary claim to the transferred sums and strong evidence of fraud, the documents sought were sufficiently specific and limited to the relevant period, and the balance of interests favoured disclosure given the bank's lack of substantive opposition and limited request for time to comply.
10 Sept 2025

DFC HOLDINGS, LLC v. OUHI CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4280
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA801/2025

Given the proved probability that banker’s records contain relevant information about transfers to the 11 accounts, the existence of fraud, lack of prejudice from delay, and the banks having been served, an order under s.21 requiring banks to produce account opening and updating documents disclosing addresses and contact details is appropriate; the order should specify the document description and include a two‑month expiry for the non-disclosure direction.
7 Mar 2025

KOZE INVESTMENTS, LLC AND ANOTHER v. FANTUNE INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1012
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA419/2025

The court granted the s.21 disclosure orders because the plaintiffs showed a real prospect that the requested, specifically defined and temporally limited bank records would assist in tracing and preserving monies subject to their proprietary claim; the need to trace and preserve assets outweighed the banks' confidentiality/privacy interests and ICBC's narrow objection did not negate the necessity of disclosure across accounts given evidence of transfers beyond the single disclosed account.
3 May 2024

CSIL LTD v. LO FONG HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1200
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA431/2022

Because CSIL served the Disclosure Summons and the supporting Arun 2nd with the requisite notice, the hearing on 31 July 2023 was inter partes; Arun 1st did not have to be served; D4-7 had a reasonable opportunity to respond; there was no material non-disclosure that would have misled the court on the issues before it; the judge did not err in refusing an adjournment; accordingly the application to discharge the Disclosure Order and for leave to appeal failed and the Summons was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

APOGEE CORPORATION TAIWAN BRANCH v. TUOBAN TRADING LTD

DFC HOLDINGS, LLC v. OUHI CO LTD

KOZE INVESTMENTS, LLC AND ANOTHER v. FANTUNE INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

CSIL LTD v. LO FONG HUNG AND OTHERS