New judgments

SIL and CNG were former co-clients of Linklaters in HKIAC arbitration proceedings. CNG engaged Linklaters on 5 August 2020, and SIL engaged the same firm on 11 December 2020, on separate retainers but with a common interest in defending the arbitration. Linklaters billed each client separately, but invoices to SIL were paid by CNG. Both clients replaced Linklaters in August 2023. By Originating Summons dated 17 March 2025, SIL and the Receivers sought delivery up of documents from Linklaters' file. CNG intervened to oppose delivery up of certain invoices and Category 2 documents, asserting legal professional privilege. The Judge found that the Category 2 documents 'belonged to' both SIL and CNG as they were exchanged during the conduct of the defence, and ordered delivery up, while noting that LPP might still govern deployment of the documents.

By our judgment dated 2 March 2026 in the 1 st plaintiff’s appeal, brought with leave of the judge below, we allowed the appeal and reinstated the Mareva injunctions against the 8 th , 9 th and 10 th defendants (“D8”, “D9” and “D10” respectively). These defendants now seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. This is our decision on their motions.

This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“ the Judge ”) given on 21 July 2026 [1] (“ the Leave Decision ”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 11 February 2021 (“ the Board’s Decision ”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal

This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li (“ the Judge ”) given on 14 July 2026 [1] (“ the Leave Decision ”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 29 September 2023 (“ the Board’s Decision ”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal ag

This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“ the Judge ”) given on 5 June 2026 [1] (“ the Leave Decision ”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 5 January 2021 (“ the Board’s Decision ”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the