Insights

This edition of DCC Commercial Digest features a selection of significant judgments released in December 2025. Curated by Stephanie T.Y. Lam and Jun Lee, this issue highlights six noteworthy cases, each accompanied by a concise summary. Our aim is to provide valuable insights into recent legal developments and enhance understanding of critical issues in commercial law.

Summary of Cases
Case 1: Court of First Instance found Mainland judgment’s “enhanced interest” order to be a penalty and hence not registrable/enforceable in Hong Kong 天津津融投資服務集團有限公司 v 濟南穆和企業管理有限公司 and Ors [2025] HKCFI 6182

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Gary CC Lam

The Court found that an order by a Mainland Court for the payment of enhanced interest pursuant to article 260 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law is punitive in nature and hence does not meet the requirement in s.5(2)(e) of the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap.597) (“MJREO”) and/or is unenforceable by reason of MJREO s.18(1)(j).

Case 2: Court of Appeal decision addressing interlocutory procedural issues in partial settlements under Hong Kong's Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619) Competition Commission v. Atal Building Services Engineering LTD and others [2025] HKCA 1120

Date of Decision: 12 December 2025

Coram: Hon Zervos and G Lam JJA

The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals arising from Competition Tribunal case management orders, upholding disclosure to non-settling respondents of correspondence and communications underlying ATAL’s Cooperation Agreements on the basis of fairness and the “warts and all” principle for accomplice evidence and confirming that such materials from successful settlements are not protected by without prejudice privilege. On penalties, it affirmed the Tribunal’s discretion in this case to adjourn ATAL’s Kam Kwong penalty until after trial or after global settlements to promote consistency and efficiency, while emphasising as a general principle that Kam Kwong applications should ordinarily be determined without unnecessary delay. Leave was granted but both appeals were dismissed, with costs to the JC Parties.

Case 3: Hong Kong's framework for enforcing Mainland arbitral awards through common law actions 廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門巿鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS [2025] HKCA 1119

Date of Judgment: 12 December 2025

Coram: Hon Kwan VP, Au JA and G Lam JA

This ruling concludes a long-running cross-border commercial dispute originating from a 2003 agreement under which the plaintiff sought to acquire indirect development rights in a Xiamen land project through share transfers from entities controlled by the defendants. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Eton Properties entities against a first-instance award of approximately RMB 343 million to the plaintiff for breach of an implied promise, to honour a 2006 CIETAC arbitral award requiring continued performance of a 2003 agreement to transfer development rights in a Xiamen land project. The Court upheld the trial judge's realistic counterfactual, allowing the plaintiff to recover lost profits from the actual project, disregarding self-induced impossibility from a covert corporate restructuring, and rejecting estoppel/waiver claims based on negotiation posturing.

Case 4: Clarification of the limited remedies for breaches of the pre-2025 Building Management Ordinance and 2018 Code of Practice on Procurement Incorporated Owners of Grenville House v Wong Tak Keung Stanley & Anor [2025] HKCA 1104

Date of Judgment: 12 December 2025

Coram: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung and Barma JJA

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by two owners against a Lands Tribunal order requiring them to pay their share of mandatory building repair costs, pursuant to valid owners' corporation resolutions and the deed of mutual covenant. The Court held that, under the pre-2025 Building Management Ordinance and 2018 Code of Practice on Procurement, the owners' corporation's failures to fully disclose the statutory notice or allow inspection of tender documents did not entitle individual owners to court-ordered remedies. Compliance was required but breaches carried no private enforceable rights, with owners' recourse limited to raising issues at general meetings.

Case 5: Court of First Instance holds common law enforcement of Mainland judgments meeting s.5(2) of the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 597) barred by MJREO s.22(2) 華融華僑資產管理股份有限公司 v 李晓鹏 [2025] HKCFI 6402

Date of Judgment: 22 December 2025

Coram: Hon Au-Yeung J

The Court held that enforcement by a common law action of a Mainland judgment that meets the requirements of ss.5(2)(a)-(e) of the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap.597) (“MJREO”) is barred by MJREO s.22(2).

Case 6: Court of Final Appeal clarifies that leave under Bankruptcy Ordinance s.12 may be given for all stages of oral examination of judgment debtor and is not required on a piecemeal step-by-step basis Dadra Inc v Chan Choi Har Ivy [2025] HKCFA 25

Date of Judgment: 30 December 2025

Coram: Chief Justice Cheung, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary NPJ and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury NPJ

On the question of whether a High Court Master would only have the jurisdiction to make an order for the imprisonment of a judgment debtor who has been adjudged [bankrupt] under O.49B r.1B(1)(c) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A) (“RHC”) on the ground that he has wilfully failed to make full disclosure as required under RHC O.49B r.1A(2) if leave has been expressly sought and granted under section 12(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap.6) for the judgment creditor to proceed with or commence an application for an order for the imprisonment of such debtor under RHC O.49B r.1B(1)(c), the CFA said “no”.

Disclaimer: These articles do not constitute legal advice and seek to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs included in this document are for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter related to the cases summarised. The views and opinions expressed in these articles are solely those of the members authoring them and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.