N.P. King (Hong Kong) Ltd and Another v. Lam Wing Lam and Another

On 9 September 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Gary CC Lam handed down judgment in N.P. King (Hong Kong) Ltd and Another v. Lam Wing Lam and Another [2026] HKCFI 5167, awarding the Plaintiffs HK$232,180.10 in damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of his duty of fidelity and restrictive covenants, while dismissing the claim against the 2nd Defendant and the Defendants' counterclaim. Mr Frederick Fong, instructed by Christine M. Koo & Ip, acted for the successful Plaintiffs.

The dispute arose from the resignation of Wilson Lam, a long-serving sourcing engineer assigned to handle all transactions between the Plaintiffs and ATA Group, their major customer. While still employed, Wilson Lam incorporated Wilson Link Ltd (his wife's company), negotiated and signed a four-year management contract with ATA Group to take over the Plaintiffs' role effective 11 October 2021, and after his resignation approached three of the Plaintiffs' other customers soliciting business. The Plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duties, breach of the implied duty of fidelity, breach of confidence, and breach of the non-disclosure, non-solicitation and non-competition clauses in his employment contract.

The Court held that:

(1) Wilson Lam did not owe fiduciary duties because the Plaintiffs failed to plead or prove any "power or discretion" vested in him over the ATA transactions (§§53-54).

(2) The price lists and customer lists lacked the quality of confidence, so the breach of confidence claim failed (§§59-63).

(3) The Defendants failed to prove that Susan Sim made the alleged oral representation releasing Wilson Lam from the trade restraint clauses; even if made, it would not constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver given its self-contradictory contents (§§65-67).

(4) Entering into the ATA Agreement while still employed constituted a substantive breach of the duty of fidelity, not a mere preparatory step, because the agreement was unconditionally effective from 11 October 2021 and bound ATA to terminate the Plaintiffs (§§70-75).

(5) Wilson Lam breached the non-solicitation and non-competition clauses by circulating price lists for Pegler Valves and R Brand Drills, and breached the non-solicitation clause by approaching Winly, Sing Lee and Tecware (§§81-84).

(6) Wilson Link Ltd had no liability because dishonest assistance requires a prior breach of fiduciary duty, and there was no breach of confidence (§§103-104).

The Court awarded HK$227,180.10 in lost profits (retainer fees and PRC supplier commissions for the 6 months and 7 days the Plaintiffs would otherwise have retained ATA's business, less Wilson Lam's salary) plus HK$5,000 nominal damages for the post-termination solicitation breaches.

For practitioners: when pleading fiduciary duties against a non-director employee, identify the specific power or discretion entrusted to them; mere seniority or customer-facing role is insufficient. Restrictive covenant cases turn heavily on contemporaneous documents, so advise clients to record any release or waiver in writing at the time, not later. Where an employee signs a replacement contract with the employer's customer before resigning, expect the court to treat the contract as a substantive breach of fidelity, not mere preparation.