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.
Insights
This edition of DCC Commercial Digest features a selection of significant judgments released in February 2026. Curated by James Wood and Justin W.T. Lam, this issue highlights four 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 Appeal clarifies copyright protection for architectural works and construction drawings
Sky King Machinery Engineering Ltd v. China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd [2026] HKCA 11
Date of Decision: 2 February 2026
Coram: Hon Barma and Chow JJA, Mimmie Chan J
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against a judgment which found that it had infringed copyright in respect of construction drawings and installations relating to a public fill sorting facility in Tseung Kwan O. The Court affirmed that the Plaintiff was the owner of the copyright in the relevant construction plans and installations, which the Defendant had used without authorisation in a subsequent government project. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings as to the originality of the Plaintiff’s works, and confirmed that there is no requirement of “artistic quality” for works of architecture to qualify for copyright protection under Hong Kong law.
Case 2: Articles of Association prevail over internal policies: Court upholds directors’ authority to bind the company
Jiang Saizhen v. China Come Ride New Energy Group Ltd and Another [2026] HKCFI 553
Date of Decision: 2 February 2026
Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Alan Kwong
The Court held that a company’s internal policies cannot override the authority-conferring provisions set out in its articles of association.
Case 3: Court of Appeal confirms that only instruments that relate directly to real property are registerable under the Land Registration Ordinance
Smart Edge Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v HG Property Investment HK [2026] HKCA 149
Date of Judgment: 3 February 2026
Coram:Hon. Kwan VP, Barma JA and Au JA
In this case, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the instruments regarding the sale and purchase of shares in a company (“Holdco”) that held a real property, namely the Goldin Financial Global Centre (now known as The Bay Hub), were not registrable under the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap 128) as lis pendens in the Land Registry because the instruments did not create an interest in land. In contrast, a sale and purchase agreement for a real property itself is a registrable instrument on the land register of the relevant property under the Land Registration Ordinance (Cap 128).
Case 4: Recognition of overseas court appointed receivers
Cosimo Borrelli & Ors v Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and China National Gold Group Hong Kong Ltd [2026] HKCFI 1250
Date of Judgment: 27 February 2026
Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Gary Lam
This case concerned an application by BVI Court Appointed Receivers for the delivery-up of a client file held by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer. The Hong Kong Court declined to recognise the Receivers because it was not satisfied that the Receivers' appointment in the BVI was de facto continuing. The Court also permanently stayed an application by SIL itself for the delivery-up of its client file, in favour of arbitration under s.20(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance. The decision raises interesting questions as to whether claims under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and applications involving the conduct of solicitors are arbitrable as a matter of public policy.