Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v. The Secretary for Justice and Another

HCMP 93/2023

[2026] HKCFI 1888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCEMISCELLANEOUS

PROCEEDINGS NO 93 OF 2023

____________

____________

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

BACKGROUND

1.This hearing concerns redaction of a judgment handed down on 23 February 2026 (“the Judgment”), which prohibited publication without leave of the court.

2.The Foundation initially applied for non-publication of the Judgment, but subsequently proposed redactions to it, which have been marked up in blue (“the Blue Version”). In gist the proposed redactions seek to (i) anonymize all the parties in the Probate Proceedings including SJ; and remove (ii) all references to the Foundation, (iii) references to the Estate, (iv) the case numbers of the Probate Proceedings, (v) facts relating to the Probate Proceedings, (vi) facts relating to the Scheme Proceedings, (vii) references to the 2012 Summons, (viii) references to the Beddoe Application and (ix) the paragraphs referring to the costs incurred by the Foundation in the Probate Proceedings, its out of pocket expenses and donations received, (x) a section referring to the collateral purposes of the Foundation that underlined the Reimbursement Application; (xi) and the references to the instructing solicitors for each party.

3.SJ did not agree to the Blue Version, but counter-proposed redactions, marked up in brown (“the Brown Version”), that effectively redacted the 2012 Summons, the Beddoe Application and the Beddoe Judgment.  The Foundation did not agree to it either.

4.PD 25.2, paragraph 2, provides that no report should be made of any proceeding (including the judgment) held in chambers not open to the public without the authority of the judge before whom the proceedings were conducted. However, if the judge considers that proceedings should be open for reporting or the judgment should be released for publication the judge should afford the parties an opportunity to make representations upon the matter before so declaring.  This is the hearing for the parties to make representations, at the request of the Foundation.  The same abbreviations in the Judgment are adopted here.

PRINCIPLES

5.Judgments, even if made in chambers not open to the public, may contain points of principle that may be applied in other cases.  Publication of those judgments may benefit discussions, comments or even criticisms on points of fact and of law.  While any publication of a judgment should be sensitive to the private or personal details of a party, redactions must be justified on cogent grounds.  Mere assertions of confidentiality or sensitivity are not sufficient, especially where the information in question is already in the public domain.  Moreover, redactions should not affect a reader’s understanding of the judgment. 

THE FOUNDATION’S BLUE VERSION

6.I have considered the 5 grounds put forth by the Foundation to support its stance. 

7.Although the OS bore the title of Order 85, RHC, the proceedings in substance were not Order 85 in nature and the Foundation was found to have lacked locus to make an application under it.  In truth and in substance, the Judgment concerns an application for an indemnity out of the Estate for costs made pursuant to published Judgments (§§1, 37-39).  The OS is not about questions on administration of the Estate. 

8.The Blue Version in fact contains, in bulk, facts quoted from published judgments or decisions in open court hearings involving, amongst others, the same parties in this OS.  The parties to those published judgments are already well known to the public due to the high profile of the Probate Proceedings.  There is simply no reason to anonymize the parties and their solicitors or to redact those quoted facts.  This applies to items (i) to (vi) and (xi) in paragraph 2 above.

9.There was no question of private lives of parties involved in the Judgment. “Private lives” concerning eg the Deceased were matters already mentioned in the published judgments to the Probate Proceedings. The Foundation, being a charitable corporation, cannot complain of having, “private life” being disclosed to the public.  The conduct of its manager or persons in control is not “private life” of a person but facts affecting the Court’s view of its operation that in turn carried an impact on the costs issue before her.  This applies to items (ii), (iii), (x) and (xi) in paragraph 2 above.  Items (vii)-(viii) are dealt with under the Brown Version.

10.Quantum of costs incurred by the Foundation had been the subject matter of media reports. Further, the quantum of costs incurred by the Foundation and the donations it received for the purpose of the Probate Proceedings were clearly matters relevant to the Court’s exercise of its discretion that led to the Judgment.  Redaction of facts will affect the understanding of the Judgment. This applies to item (ix) in paragraph 2 above.

11.There are of course pending related proceedings, some of which have been mentioned in the Judgment.  However, judges are used to focusing on the matters of fact and law relevant to the cause before it.  Comments on facts e.g. in interlocutory matters will not affect a trial judge’s view of the evidence at trial.  Findings in Case A would not affect a judge’s view of Case B if those findings are not relevant to the issue in Case B.  Judges are professionally trained to disregard irrelevant matters in coming to a decision.  The pending related proceedings do not affect the question of redaction in this case.  This applies to items (vi) to (vii) and (x) in paragraph 2 above.

12.None of the grounds put forward by the Foundation in support of the Blue Version bear scrutiny.

SJ’S BROWN VERSION

13.I agree with SJ that the 2012 Summons, the Beddoe application or the Beddoe Judgment truly concern internal matters affecting a trustee and the estate.  However the dates and the existence of those 3 matters should not be redacted for being relevant to the understanding of the Judgment.  I have therefore made some suggested amendments to the redactions, now reflected in DOJ’s final version lodged on 25 March 2026 (“the revised Brown Version”).  This applies to items (vii) and (viii) in paragraph 2 above.

CONCLUSION AND COSTS

14.For the reasons given, I allow the revised Brown Version to be published.

15.This application has arisen out of the unreasonable extent of redactions proposed by the Foundation, who should pay costs of SJ and the Administrators.  I summarily assess the costs of SJ at HK $17,000 and those of the Administrators at HK $20,000.

16.I thank counsel for their assistance

Mr Justin Lam, instructed by Chiu, Szeto and Cheng, for the Plaintiff

Ms Jess Chan, Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) of Department of Justice, for the 1^st Defendant  

Mr Andrew Cheng, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for the 2^nd Defendant