Date of Decision: 2 January 2026

Coram: Hon Kwan VP and Au JA

The latest decision in the China Evergrande Group (“CEG”) litigation concerns an application for leave to appeal against the continuation of a Mareva injunction obtained by the liquidators of CEG against its former CEO and executive director, Xia Haijun (“Xia”). The Court of Appeal refused leave, reaffirming the high threshold for appellate intervention in discretionary interlocutory decisions on the grant of injunction. The decision provides guidance on various aspects of the Mareva test, as well as on allegations of breach of directors’ duties in respect of financial statements and dividend approvals where there are elements of delegation by the director.

Date of Decision: 9 January 2026

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

The Court of Final Appeal has ruled that where an employee is subjected to harassment by another person in the course of their employment, and where the harassment is, in substance, directed at the employer, the employer ought to have standing to seek injunctive relief to protect the employee. In the same judgment, the Court also decided that the common law in Hong Kong does recognise a tort of harassment, and a company does not have a cause of action in harassment, being a legal person incapable of experiencing feelings.

Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge MK Liu

This ruling has decided that Hong Kong Courts should not order pre-judgment and/or post judgment interest on the sum due, where an applicant is seeking domestic common law enforcement of a PRC Mainland judgment that has already capped the interest on the sum due under the Mainland judgment.

Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026

Coram: Harris J

The Petitioner sought an order winding-up a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The main contention was whether there is a real possibility that the winding-up order will benefit the applicant, which is one of three requirements set out by the Court of Final Appeal in Kam Leung Siu Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai (2015) 18 HKCFAR 501 for exercising the winding up jurisdiction over a foreign company.

Date of Judgment: 16 January 2026

Coram: Queenie Au-Yeung J

The Court granted unconditional leave to defend an O.88 mortgagee action upon the plaintiff bank’s application for summary determination, on the basis that it was arguable the Bank had no right to call in the loans and that its own breach of confidentiality triggered the prevention principle.

Date of Judgment: 22 January 2026

Coram: Deputy District Judge Simon Wong

Although District Judges have on numerous occasions granted Norwich Pharmacal relief, there have not been many judgments discussing the issue of the District Court’s jurisdiction to grant such relief. In this case, the Court agreed with the conclusion in two previous District Court judgments that the District Court does have jurisdiction to grant Norwich Pharmacal relief, but on different reasoning. Deputy District Judge Simon Wong, a member of Denis Chang’s Chambers, held that the District Court does have such jurisdiction, not by inherent power, nor under the statutory discovery provisions or injunction powers, but through its civil jurisdiction under Part 4 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) (“DCO”) combined with its ancillary equitable powers under s.48. On that basis, the Court granted the plaintiff’s application for Norwich Pharmacal relief against Hang Seng Bank to obtain the last known address of a third party whose cheques had been dishonoured, limited to disclosure of the address.

Date of Judgment: 30 January 2026

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Gary CC Lam

This appeal concerned whether the plaintiff’s Hong Kong claim for RMB15 million under an alleged loan agreement should be struck out as an abuse of process on the basis of issue estoppel arising from earlier PRC judgments about a related RMB5 million payment. The Deputy High Court Judge allowed the appeal and reinstated the action, holding that the defendant failed to show that the PRC judgments were final and conclusive for issue estoppel purposes. Crucially, the mere availability of retrial under the PRC “trial supervision system” does not per se render PRC judgments non-final, but finality must be proved with evidence (usually expert evidence). Since no such evidence was adduced and the issues decided in the PRC proceedings were not identical to those in Hong Kong, issue estoppel and other abuse arguments failed.