Date of Judgment: 3 August 2026

Coram: DHCJ Jason Pow SC

In this case, the Court enforced two PRC money judgments, rejecting the defendant's argument that the PRC trial supervision procedure prevented them from being "final and conclusive." Crucially, the mere existence of a retrial mechanism does not automatically defeat finality, and a real likelihood of retrial must be shown.

Date of Judgment:12 August 2026

Coram: Au and Chow JJA

In this case, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, allowing an unfair preference claim to proceed to trial. The restorative remedy under section 266 of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) is broad and fact-sensitive, capable of encompassing indirect or alternative forms of relief, not limited to direct restitution, so the claim should not be struck out at the outset.

Date of Judgment 17 August 2026

Coram: Linda Chan J

In this case, the Court granted document disclosure to assist BVI liquidators in a cross-border insolvency. The court held that (1) the common law power to assist foreign office-holders includes ordering a local party to provide information reasonably required for the office-holder's functions, balancing necessity against oppression; and (2) the court’s powers of assistance extends to granting relief which could have been made by the foreign court even though no such order has in fact been made. This is consistent with the principles governing the grant of relief to assist foreign office-holders.

Date of Judgment: 18 August 2026

Coram: ST Poon J

In this case, the Court granted summary judgment against the 4th Defendant, rejecting his bona fide purchaser defence to a fraud-induced money claim. The court held that foreign illegality bars the defence. Where the defendant's underlying currency exchange transaction was illegal under PRC law (as a "match order"), and the plaintiff was an innocent fraud victim enforcing proprietary rights (not a party to the illegal agreement), the defence is unavailable, distinguishing Wong Chi Hung v Lo Wing Pun and following Ryder and She Ching Yan .

Date of Judgment: 26 August 2026

Coram: DHCJ Patrick Fung SC

In this case, the Court refused to strike out negligence claims against PwC's global brand overseer (the 3rd Defendant) for audits that allegedly led to RMB 42 billion in unjustified dividends. The Court held that it is arguable that the 3rd Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff under either the threefold test (foreseeability, proximity and fairness) or assumption of responsibility, and given incomplete facts, the claim should proceed to discovery rather than be struck out at this stage.