Chen Hongqing v. Liu Yiu Keung Stephen and Others

On 1 September 2026, the Court of First Instance (K Yeung JA, sitting as an additional judge) handed down judgment in HCA 1699/2019, Chen Hongqing v. Liu Yiu Keung Stephen & Others, dismissing the Plaintiff's summons for leave to re-amend his Statement of Claim. Mr Law Man-Chung SC (leading Mr Danny Tang) acted for the Plaintiff; Mr Jose Maurellet SC (leading Mr Alexander Tang and Mr Kevin Lau) acted for the SHDs, and Mr Anson Wong SC (leading Mr Lai Chun Ho and Ms Stephy Lo) acted for Jinan Group.

The underlying dispute concerns beneficial ownership of shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited. Chen HQ has consistently maintained that the Loan Agreements with 11 Nominees were in substance agency agreements, and has obtained Ruzhou Judgments and CIETAC Nominee Awards on that footing. The Defendants contend the Loan Agreements created a lender/borrower relationship. By his 2026 Amendment Summons, Chen HQ sought to add three heads of amendment to his Statement of Claim.

The Court held that:

(1) The Alternative Claim Amendment (DRASOC §§60-66, prayers 36-39), which would allow Chen HQ to recover unpaid principal and interest from the 10 Nominees on the basis that the Loan Agreements were genuine loans, was an abuse of process. Allowing Chen HQ to run a case factually inconsistent with his own would mean he could obtain relief in Hong Kong on a basis different from the one on which he obtained the Ruzhou Judgments and Nominee Awards (§§27-30). Reliance on Poon Hau Kei v Hsin Chong was misplaced, as that case involved a genuine factual dispute, not diametrically opposed positions (§34).

(2) The Negative Pledge Amendment to §40 was bound to fail on privity grounds. A covenant between A and B prohibiting B from doing a certain act does not without more invalidate a subsequent contract between B and C (§48). Mr Law's attempt to recast the amendment as a priority or injunction claim was not what was pleaded (§§49-51).

(3) The No Entitlement Amendment was unarguable. The "No Interest" limb added nothing to the existing pleadings (§63). The "Payment Discharge" limb hinged on an Inferred Term that contradicted the plain language of Clause 2.8 of the 2017 Jinan SPAs and was not necessary to give the contract business efficacy (§§73-75).

The summons was dismissed in its entirety, with costs nisi against Chen HQ on a summary basis, with certificates for two counsel for both the SHDs and Jinan Group (§83).

For practitioners, the takeaway is concrete: late-stage amendments that contradict positions taken in other proceedings, or that rely on terms to be implied into express contracts, will be refused where they are unarguable or abusive. Parties should plead their alternative cases at the outset, not after years of contested proceedings.