Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial of preliminary issues

Legal area

Court

3 Sept 2025

CHINA STEM CELLS (SOUTH) COMPANY LTD (INCORPORATED IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 724
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV91/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were fact‑sensitive and not of the great general or public importance required under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the judge did not exceed the scope of the Preliminary Issues, was entitled to consider and make findings on related matters necessary to determine those issues, and correctly applied the burden of proof in making positive findings of backdating based on objective evidence.
21 May 2025

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/2024

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the impugned transfer, allotment and appointment documents were created on or after 29 September 2022 and backdated to 12–13 September 2022 and therefore void for want of authority (and/or voidable for breaches of fiduciary duty and improper purpose); the appellants' complaints about scope, burden of proof and pleading defects did not establish material error warranting reversal, and the appeals were dismissed.
21 May 2025

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2024

The Court affirmed the trial judge's findings that the Impugned Documents were created on or after 29 September 2022 and backdated to 12-13 September 2022 (thus void for want of authority and/or voidable for breach of fiduciary duty), that CISIL and MS had requisite knowledge, and that the judge did not err in considering the 2019 Security Arrangement or in her handling of evidential burden; appeals were dismissed.
21 May 2025

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2024

The impugned documents were held to have been created on or after 29 September 2022 and backdated based on corroborated objective facts, inconsistencies and unreliability in defendants' evidence, and the absence of contemporaneous supporting documentation; the trial judge acted within bounds in considering related matters (including aspects of the 2019 Security Arrangement) relevant to credibility and breach issues; any mistaken comment on pleadings or evidential burden did not materially affect outcome; therefore the appeals lacked merit and were dismissed.
26 Feb 2025

SUN TIAN GANG AND ANOTHER v. CHANGCHUN HIGH & NEW TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT PARENT COMPANY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV475/2022

The Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to rely on section 26(3) and that, as a matter of case management, a trial judge may assume commission of a breach of duty for the purposes of a TPI and determine elements (ii) and (iii) of s26(3) (deliberateness and objective un‑discoverability) without finally determining liability; on the facts the judge properly found deliberate concealment as to the nominee nature of the CG sale but did not err on discoverability or on the reasonable diligence test. Appeals and cross‑appeals were dismissed with costs directions as set out.
25 Jan 2016

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD

Citation

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1701/2014

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable prospect that the court had gone clearly wrong or erred in principle: the present action concerns substantially similar underlying events so the court properly exercised its discretion to order a trial of preliminary issues under established strike out and case management principles; the defendant had no duty to commence separate proceedings to impugn documents and the court properly ordered simultaneous exchange of witness statements; limitation issues potentially affect the second plaintiff'…
29 Sept 2015

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD

Citation

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1701/2014

The court has jurisdiction under Order 33 r 3 to order a trial of preliminary issues of fact even in the context of a strike out application where circumstances are highly exceptional; the late allegation of an assignment and notice was exceptional and potentially determinative of whether the proceedings were an abuse of process, therefore the court ordered a trial of the specified preliminary factual issues with specified directions and preserved costs of the hearing.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA STEM CELLS (SOUTH) COMPANY LTD (INCORPORATED IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

CHINA STEM CELLS HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHENG TING AND OTHERS

SUN TIAN GANG AND ANOTHER v. CHANGCHUN HIGH & NEW TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT PARENT COMPANY AND OTHERS

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD