Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory compliance

Legal area

Court

14 Oct 2025

NGAI CHUN NGOR IRENE AND OTHERS v. EVERMORE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP560/2025

The plaintiffs are entitled to inspect company accounting records absent clear proof of improper purpose; the defendants failed to prove improper purpose but swore they do not possess and cannot access the documents; the court therefore refused to make the inspection order at that stage and ordered D5 and D6 to file further unqualified affirmations within 14 days confirming non-possession and inability to procure access, with liberty to apply and costs reserved.
28 Jan 2025

WAI LAM WORKSHOP LTD v. THIS THIS RICE (CAUSEWAY BAY) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 508
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1623/2024

The court ordered the company to convene an AGM within 28 days to enable the audited financial statements to be laid before shareholders and adjourned the inspection application sine die with liberty to apply; the court found it appropriate to join the major shareholders and the director as parties because the SIA and facts showed they control and direct the company’s decisions; costs of the application were ordered nisi against the controlling shareholders and director (D2, D3 and D4) to be summarily assessed and payable forthwith.
4 Oct 2024

YELSEN FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD 對 WONG KIT TAI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1669
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5371/2017

The court refused the applications because the proposed fresh evidence was admissible neither under the Ladd and Marshall criteria nor decisive, the defendant failed to show a real prospect of success on appeal given the trial judge’s reasoned credibility findings supported by documents, and no exceptional circumstances justified a stay of execution; accordingly the May 16, 2024 judgment was upheld and applications dismissed with costs.
20 Sept 2024

LEI SHING HONG CREDIT LTD v. LAM MEI YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2563
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP888/2023

Appeals dismissed; breaches of s18(2)(i) and s27 were minor and did not render the loans and securities unenforceable in all the circumstances; Service Charge construed as simple interest permissible under s22 proviso; equitable enforcement ordered with modification that interest be charged at 8% p.a. for HCMP 213 and HCMP 888 and 9% p.a. for HCMP 903, legal costs charged in breach under s27 to be deducted from claimed sums; plaintiff directed to recalculate and serve final sums and orders nisi made on costs.
17 Apr 2024

CREDIT ONE FINANCE LTD v. HUNG YEE LAI ISIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 742
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4005/2023

Order for sale granted because plaintiff holds an unsatisfied sealed money judgment against the 1st defendant, proper service and statutory compliance were established, the 2nd defendant consented, no evidence of very great or undue hardship was produced, and physical partition of the residential unit was impracticable or prejudicial to the owners; accordingly sale and the proposed priority and distribution regime were ordered.
31 Aug 2023

LAM BING KWAN v. SINO-I TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1022/2023

Because the company's board was genuinely unable to address the auditors' concerns arising from valuation issues caused by a related non‑Hong Kong incorporated group and the company had taken steps to ensure members were informed, the court exercised its discretion to grant a further extension to comply with section 431 until 28 February 2024.
18 Jul 2023

梁淑微對醫院管理局

Citation

[2023] HKCA 860
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV362/2022

The application for leave to appeal under s22(1)(b) failed because the issues advanced were not questions of general or public importance and the applicant's grounds were untenable: the claim was not properly brought without the statutory permission required by the Mental Health Ordinance, the defendant's stay application was properly and timely made under court direction, and the contention about absence of court seals misconstrued the scope of s51 of the High Court Ordinance; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded.
18 May 2021

RE KIDSLOOP LTD (“the Company”)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1454
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP338/2021

The court granted the extension because the Company applied before the statutory deadline, demonstrated that the delays were inadvertent and caused by legitimate auditing and valuation complexities and COVID‑19 constraints, shareholders had been kept informed and suffered no prejudice, and the company was likely to comply with its obligations in future.
8 Apr 2021

HUSSAIN RIZWAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 922
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL692/2018

Leave refused because the applicant failed to comply with statutory duties to return the SCF and to provide evidence to re-open the withdrawn claim; the Board's findings that correspondence was sent to the last reported address and that no circumstances beyond the claimant's control were shown were reasonable and disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness, so there was no arguable basis for judicial review.
23 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. ABLE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA597/2019

The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the magistrate's finding of negligence by unspecified employees was not supported by the evidence, the inference that the channel could and should have been covered was speculative and not grounded in primary fact, and the appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that it honestly and reasonably believed it was complying with statutory and regulatory anti-mosquito measures, thereby establishing the common law defence.