Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unclean hands

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2025

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. HUI TSZ HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP110/2021

Court accepted that Plaintiff established beneficial ownership by a common intention constructive trust but held that the 2nd Defendant proved it was a bona fide mortgagee for valuable consideration without actual or constructive notice of Plaintiff's equitable interest; because the Plaintiff's 2019 Declaration was not registered before the Konew Mortgages, the mortgages take priority and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
29 Dec 2023

G v. N

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT28/2023

Where an award denies relief because of illegality the supervisory court must assess whether enforcing the award would now conflict with Hong Kong public policy as currently understood (Patel/Monat); errors by a tribunal in characterising public policy may justify suspension and remission under Article 34(4) rather than immediate setting aside; however contractual limits on remedies (clause 6.10(e)) are matters of construction and not jurisdictional if not timely pleaded, so that ground for setting aside was dismissed.
15 Feb 2018

HARBOUR FRONT LTD v. MONEY FACTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW116/2015

The petitions were dismissed because Harbour Front had been fairly excluded from management due to prior misconduct identified in earlier judgments and had not taken genuine, substantial steps to remedy that misconduct; the alleged mismanagement and reconciliation complaints were either insufficiently serious to justify winding-up, unproven or procedurally impermissible, and the petitions constituted an abuse of process in the factual and procedural context, so equitable relief was refused and costs awarded against Harbour Front.
10 Aug 2015

ZHANG YUZHEN v. YANG YUEXIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

ZHANG YUZHEN v. YANG YUEXIANG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA157/2015

Although the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried (including plausibly improper concealment and potential misappropriation of the Company’s sole asset and arguable claims against the purchaser), the balance of convenience favoured allowing the sale and operation of ZJ to continue to protect the company's going concern value; accordingly the court partially discharged the ex parte injunction (paras 1 and 3) but continued paragraph 2 and ordered the purchaser to place the outstanding balance into court.
5 Aug 2015

CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS v. POON KA MAN JASON (Suing on behalf of himself and all other shareholders in Smart Wave Ltd except the 1st Defendant) AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS v. POON KA MAN JASON (Suing on behalf of himself and all other shareholders in Smart Wave Ltd except the 1st Defendant) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV22/2015

Leave to appeal was granted on the refined question addressing whether the no conflict rule and the Duomatic principle apply to a director of a chain business operating under an agreed one company per operation modus operandi, and leave was also granted on whether a nominal representative who agreed to and benefited from that modus operandi can assert a contrary position in a derivative action. Leave was refused for duplicative, purely fact sensitive or unarguable questions (including those on procedural resiling and on unclean hands lacking reasonable prospects on these facts).
8 May 2015

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV135/2013

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the questions raised are not reasonably arguable or of sufficient general or public importance; the contested principles (Bell v Lever and Duomatic) are well established and their application is fact‑specific and contextual; issues about shareholder consent, counsel's trial position and cross‑examination are likewise fact‑specific; and the defendants cannot rely on an unpleaded unclean hands defence on appeal.
15 Oct 1986

GUESS ?, INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS

Citation

GUESS ?, INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/1986

Where an Anton Piller order was obtained with serious and substantial non-disclosure the court should not permit the applicant to retain the benefit of material obtained thereby unless there are good and compelling reasons; the court must exercise a discretion, and in this case the yield should have been excluded, and without that evidence the Plaintiffs failed to show a serious issue to be tried against the 7th Defendant, so the interlocutory injunction could not stand and the amended order was set aside.
30 Apr 1986

GUESS ?. INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS

Citation

GUESS ?. INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA604/1986

The ex‑parte Anton Piller order was discharged because the applicants failed to make full and frank disclosure of several material matters and because the evidence did not establish a real possibility (as distinct from an extravagant fear) that defendants would destroy or conceal material; however the plaintiffs established a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured interim injunctive relief, so a non‑mandatory interlocutory injunction was granted on terms while the court exercised control over the use and custody of material seized under the executed order.