Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without prejudice privilege

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1120
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1093/2025

The Court held that correspondence and communications relating to cooperation agreements between the Commission and settling parties who are accomplices assisting prosecutions are not, as a general category, protected from disclosure by without prejudice privilege where disclosure is necessary for the fair trial of non‑settling respondents (application of the ‘warts and all’ principle and Rule 24 balancing). The Court also held that the President did not err in principle in adjourning the Kam Kwong penalty determination until after trial or until all respondents had agreed to a Kam Kwong sett…
12 Dec 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1120
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP370/2023

Where a settling party has admitted liability and agreed to cooperate, correspondence and communications forming part of the cooperation process and relied on by the Commission are, as a class, disclosable to non‑settling respondents when relevant to assessing credibility and fairness of the prosecution case; by contrast, without prejudice privilege does not generally protect successful settlement communications from disclosure in that context. The President's exercise of discretion to adjourn determination of a Kam Kwong penalty until after trial or after all respondents agree to settlement…
12 Dec 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1120
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1094/2025

Communications and correspondence between the Commission and parties who admitted liability and entered Cooperation Agreements are not, as a general category, protected from disclosure by without prejudice privilege where those communications are relevant to the credibility and reliability of accomplice evidence relied upon against non-settling respondents; accordingly the Tribunal's disclosure order (paragraph 3(b)(iv) dated 22 February 2024) was upheld. Separately, the Tribunal acted within its discretion in deciding, in the circumstances of these cases, to determine liability first and to…
12 Dec 2025

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1120
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP369/2023

Communications and correspondence relating to Cooperation Agreements between the Commission and settling parties were not generally protected by without prejudice privilege vis‑à‑vis non‑settling defendants because the settling parties are accomplices whose communications are relevant to credibility and must be disclosed for a fair trial; and the President’s discretion to adjourn the Kam Kwong penalty determination until after trial or after all respondents agree to settlement was reasonable in the circumstances, so the Court upheld the President’s orders while emphasising Kam Kwong applicati…
17 Nov 2025

P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT59/2023

The court refused leave because the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the judge applied the correct legal tests, considered procedural and bias complaints together, found no evidentiary basis that the Tribunal was unconsciously or apparently biased by exposure to WPP material, correctly treated the Tribunal's assurances and the materiality/context of WPP as relevant, and concluded the scientific literature and the question of appointing an expert did not establish any arguable error warranting appellate intervention.
13 Nov 2025

SUEN WAI MO v. LAM HONG KI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA133/2020

The court held that the fraud exception was engaged given interconnected claims and allegations of dishonesty spanning the writ, so it had no jurisdiction to grant summary judgment (Order 14) in respect of the Panven claim; further, even absent the jurisdictional bar the materials disclosed triable issues so summary judgment would have been refused. The application for interim receivership was dismissed because the applicant failed to show a real risk of dissipation or that receivership was proportionate; the late additional affirmation evidence was refused and the expungement application was…
19 Sept 2025

YUEN TSZ CHUN FRANK and CHAN HOI YAN, the Joint and Several Liquidators of RZ3262019 LTD (in Liquidation) v. ZHOU YING INVESTMENTS GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1589/2024

The court dismissed the defendants' striking out applications because it was not plain and obvious that the PRC Retrial Judgments had determined the same issues required for issue estoppel given material differences in standard and burden of proof and absence of clear findings on control and conspiracy; condition of identity of issue therefore failed. The court also held relief (2) was not plainly non-restorative or lacking Hong Kong connection on the evidence and refused to strike out paras 94.2/94.4 as not demonstrably covered by without prejudice privilege. The case-management stay was ref…
2 Jul 2025

LAU MO CHOI v. LAU MUK FAT (as the Manager of Lau Shau Wo Tso ‘劉壽和祖’)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2656
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1263/2012

The Settlement Agreement is prima facie relevant to the assessment of expenses under the Agreement for Sharing Liabilities because settlement sums attributable to litigation concerning completion and defects of the Houses (pleaded in paras 6(10) and 6(11)-(14)) can reduce the liabilities to be shared; the without prejudice rule does not apply because the subject matter of the present assessment (allocation of expenses) differs from the Defendant-WKW settlement subject matter such that without prejudice privilege does not prevent disclosure; accordingly the Master order is set aside and a limi…
12 Jun 2025

P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2446
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT59/2023

The court held that applicants failed to show any structural or egregious procedural irregularity or appearance of bias: the tribunal exercised legitimate case management powers, properly considered risks of unconscious bias and the option of an expert, was capable of disregarding inadmissible without prejudice material, and reasonably reserved Clause 6 issues to Phase 2 for further disclosure and remedies; accordingly the award was not vulnerable to setting aside under s81 AO/UNCITRAL Article 34(2).
31 Mar 2025

RE LIU WING TING STEPHEN trading as STEPHEN LIU AND COMPANY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4968/2024

Although the merits showed no bona fide defence and the debtor's admissions rendered the debt due, the petition was dismissed because personal service in compliance with Rule 59 was not established; accordingly the court could not make a bankruptcy order despite substantive merit.