Date of Decision: 2 March 2026

Coram: Hon G Lam JA and DHCJ Keith in Court

The Court of Appeal reinstated and ordered the continuation of Mareva (freezing) injunctions against 3 individuals freezing assets of an alleged large-scale fraudulent scheme at a lower monetary ceiling of US$150 million, based on the plaintiff’s estimates. The sums transferred by victims amounted to US$212.8 million. However, many victims had received purported ‘returns’ or ‘commissions’ from the same pool of monies.

Date of Decision: 4 March 2026

Coram: Hon Harris J, President of the Competition Tribunal in Court

The Competition Tribunal considered whether Harbour Plaza 8 Degrees Hotel (“Hotel”) and its manager had facilitated a price‑fixing arrangement between two competing ticket sellers, Gray Line and Tink Labs. Gray Line and Tink Labs agreed that Tink Labs would match Gray Line’s ticket prices, and staff from the Hotel helped pass pricing information between them.

The Tribunal held that the arrangement between the two sellers was horizontal price‑fixing and therefore anti‑competitive beyond reasonable doubt. However, it ruled that mere facilitation of a cartel does not fall within section 6 (the First Conduct Rule) because facilitation must instead be pursued under section 91 of the Competition Ordinance, which has its own specific elements. As the Commission had proceeded only under section 6, the application against the Hotel was dismissed. The EU and UK jurisprudence on this subject was distinguishable as there is no equivalent of s.91 in the TFEU or Competition Act 1998.

Date of Judgment: 19 March 2026

Coram:Hon Mimmie Chan J

In this novel application, the plaintiff sought a “Voluntary Payment Order” to pay, on its own initiative, the arbitral award on interest into Court pending appeals against the underlying arbitral liability award. The defendant objected, arguing, amongst others, that no challenge existed against such award on interest and the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction and exercised its case management powers, holding that the interest award was consequentially tied to the principal award under appeal and such Order preserved the status quo and prevented prejudice to either party.

Date of Judgment: 19 March 2026

Coram: Hon Linda Chan J

In this sanction decision, the Court approved Country Garden Holdings Limited (碧桂園控股有限公司)’s USD14.54 billion Scheme of arrangement. The Scheme, born of 20 months of intense negotiations, offers creditors recovery of 17.8–54.0% versus 2.8–11.9% in liquidation. The Court navigated complex class composition issues involving security compensation payments, work fees, and third-party releases etc., representing that even massive and multi-jurisdictional restructurings can achieve sanction where creditor majorities support commercially sensible compromises.

Date of Judgment: 20 March 2026

Coram: Hon Au, Chow and Anthony Chan JJA

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s tort of deceit claim over the name and insignia of “Pui Ching”, ruling that aspirational wordings in three key documents did not amount to representations of existing fact and the “presumption” of inducement is merely an inference of fact, not a presumption of law. The Court emphasised that composite representations must be clearly particularized and delivered a strong warning against prolix and evidence-laden pleadings, stating such documents should be struck out.