8
YK's side prevails
1
Harbour Front prevails (interlocutory; later discharged)
3
Ongoing — valuation + 2 live appeals by Harbour Front

Background · 1957–1997

BACKGROUND
Leung Family, Fonfair & the Yau Tong Property
Late 1950s – 1997 · corporate structure and Shareholders Agreement
Context

In the late 1950s, Mr Leung Senior founded Universal Dockyard Limited and acquired the Yau Tong Property (Yau Tong Marine Lot Nos. 2, 3 and 4). In 1966, he passed away. His six children, including Leung Yuet Keung (YK) and Leung Yat Tung (YT), inherited shares in Universal Dockyard.

The Yau Tong Property was sold in 1980 to Fonfair Company Limited, then a subsidiary of Universal Dockyard. The Property is Fonfair's only material asset and the last piece of land inherited from the Leung family patriarch.

Money Facts Limited was incorporated to hold 65.79% of Fonfair. Its shares are held 50/50 by YK and Harbour Front Limited (a BVI company controlled by YT). Money Facts and Fonfair were treated as a quasi-partnership between the brothers.

A Shareholders Agreement (SHA) governed the relationship. The companies were set up for three purposes: to hold the Yau Tong Property, to manage it, and ultimately to sell or develop it and divide the proceeds.

By September 1999, Fonfair granted Universal Dockyard a tenancy over the Yau Tong Property at $226,000/month. After December 1999, Universal Dockyard was allowed by YT to remain in possession without paying rent.

First Wave · 2001–2008

2001

HCA 1886/2001 ✓ in project
Fonfair v Universal Dockyard — rent arrears & possession
Decided 25 Jan 2002 · DHCJ To · Stay refused 19 Jun 2002 · DHCJ A Cheung
YK prevails

After YT was adjudged bankrupt on 1 March 2001, YK gained sole control of the Fonfair board. Fonfair sued Universal Dockyard (a company controlled by YT) for arrears of rent ($3.6 million+) and possession of the Yau Tong Property under the September 1999 tenancy.

On 5 November 2001, Master Wong granted conditional leave to defend. Universal Dockyard failed to pay into court and final judgment was entered on 11 December 2001. Universal Dockyard's appeal was dismissed by DHCJ To on 25 January 2002. YT caused documents purportedly made by Fonfair to be produced in Universal Dockyard's defence; DHCJ To found these to be lacking in credence.

HCA 1886A/2001 — STAY OF EXECUTION REFUSED (19 JUN 2002)

After the judgment was affirmed, Universal Dockyard waited until the final day for vacating the premises (18 June 2002) before applying for a stay of execution. DHCJ A Cheung refused, finding the hardship was self-induced, the application was belated, and Universal Dockyard had failed to demonstrate financial means to satisfy the outstanding judgment or pay ongoing mesne profits of $226,000/month. Francis Ip of Ho & Ip appeared for Fonfair.

Source: HCA 1886A/2001 (readable text, 6 pages). Note: cover page contains a clerical error — "Forfair" instead of "Fonfair".

The enforcement difficulty here is the first instance of what became a recurring pattern — YT's side obstructing Fonfair's attempts to recover what was owed, requiring repeated court intervention.
Sources: HCA 1886/2001 (DHCJ To, 25 Jan 2002); HCA 1886A/2001 (DHCJ A Cheung, 19 Jun 2002); Schedule of Agreed Facts §§30–33.
HCCW 880/2001 & HCCW 246/2002 ✓ in project
Re Money Facts / Re Fonfair — winding-up petitions dismissed
Decided 2 Feb 2004 · Kwan J
YK prevails

Harbour Front petitioned to wind up both Money Facts and Fonfair on the just and equitable ground, alleging unfair exclusion from management. This was the first series of petitions by Harbour Front.

Kwan J dismissed both petitions. Key findings: (1) Harbour Front had not been wrongfully excluded from management — its exclusion was justified by its own misconduct; (2) Harbour Front had not come to court with clean hands, having misappropriated rental income and thwarted Fonfair's attempts to recover the judgment debt from Universal Dockyard; (3) the quasi-partnership relationship was acknowledged but did not entitle Harbour Front to relief given its conduct.

Costs order: Harbour Front to pay respondents' costs, taxed if not agreed.

Source: HCCW 880/2001 (62 pages, Kwan J, 2 Feb 2004). Conclusion at §109.
HCA 2002/2001 ✓ in project
Fonfair v UDL Management — books & records; committal proceedings
Summary judgment 11 Dec 2001 (Master Wong) · Decided 24 Nov 2006 · Poon J · committal dismissed
Ancillary — committal failed on technicality

On 7 May 2001, Fonfair sued UDL Management Limited (UDLM) for delivery up of its books, accounting records, and company records. Summary judgment was entered on 11 December 2001, ordering UDLM to deliver the records to Fonfair's auditors and solicitors.

UDLM did not comply. Fonfair brought committal proceedings against Bobby Chan Kim Leung and Irene Leung (YT's wife), both directors of UDLM. The committal application was heard over four days in February and June 2006 before Poon J (as he then was), who dismissed it. The respondents' costs were ordered to be paid by Fonfair.

A companion costs decision is at HCA002002A_2001.pdf.

The committal application was dismissed on a pleading technicality. Fonfair's notices of motion only alleged that the directors "failed to cause" UDLM to comply with the court orders — effectively asserting automatic personal liability for the company's contempt. The law requires something more: that the director wilfully failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance (per AG for Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corp [1990] 1 WLR 927). Having not pleaded the case on that basis, Fonfair could not succeed regardless of the underlying merits. Fonfair's counsel offered to amend the notices but Poon J refused — it was too late after the close of evidence. The court expressly did not reach the merits or the question of whether contempt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt (§38: "the application is disposed of on technicality with no reference to merits").
Sources: HCA 2002/2001 (Poon J, 24 Nov 2006, §§22, 34–38); HCA 2002A/2001 (costs decision); Schedule of Agreed Facts §34.
2008

HCA 1598/2008 → CACV 260/2008 ✓ in project
Harbour Front v YK — injunction to block 2008 AGM vote; abuse of process
Decided 29 Aug 2008 · Recorder Kwok SC · Indemnity costs · appeal dismissed 4 Sep 2008
YK prevails

In August 2008, Money Facts and Fonfair directors notified shareholders of the "Littlewoods Offer" — a third-party offer to purchase the Yau Tong Property and an adjacent lot. The 2008 AGM was scheduled to consider it.

On 26 August 2008, Harbour Front commenced HCA 1598/2008 seeking a declaration that YK was in breach of the SHA and an injunction to restrain voting at the 2008 AGM. On 27 August, it applied for an urgent interim injunction.

29 August 2008 — Recorder Kwok SC dismissed the application as "an abuse of the process of the Court" and "frivolous or vexatious." Indemnity costs ordered against Harbour Front.

HCA 1598A/2008 — KWAN J REFUSES INTERIM INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (3 SEP 2008)

Harbour Front applied to Kwan J for an interim injunction pending its intended appeal. Kwan J refused on substantive grounds: Harbour Front remained in breach of the Shareholders Agreement, had thwarted the first of the three purposes for which Money Facts was set up, and had made no reparation of the losses suffered by Fonfair from the misappropriation of rental income or the unrecovered $8.5 million judgment debt (Universal Dockyard having been wound up in 2003). Kwan J did not use the term "abuse of process." Costs on the standard party-and-party basis. Daniel Fung SC appeared for Harbour Front; Francis Ip for the defendants.

Source: HCA 1598A/2008 (Kwan J, 3 Sep 2008, 5 pages).

CACV 260/2008 — COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSES APPEAL (4 SEP 2008)

The very next day, Ma CJHC and Rogers VP dismissed Harbour Front's appeal with indemnity costs. Rogers VP found the action was an attempt to relitigate matters from prior proceedings, and that the manner of conducting the litigation — waiting two weeks before commencing proceedings then making applications on very short notice — was itself tantamount to an abuse. The Court of Appeal expressly characterised Harbour Front's application as "an abuse of process."

Source: CACV 260/2008 (Ma CJHC, Rogers VP, reasons 18 Sep 2008).

When a court dismisses an application as "an abuse of process" and awards indemnity costs, it is doing more than ruling against a party — it is finding that the proceedings should not have been brought at all. Indemnity costs (as distinct from the standard party-and-party basis) are a costs penalty reflecting the court's view that the litigation conduct was unreasonable. In this sequence, Recorder Kwok and the Court of Appeal both made that finding and both awarded indemnity costs. Kwan J reached the same result — refusing the interim injunction — but on substantive grounds (Harbour Front's ongoing breaches and failure to make reparation), not abuse, and awarded party-and-party costs only.

Second Wave · 2015–2018

2015–
2018

HCCW 111/2015 & HCCW 116/2015 ✓ in project
2015 Petitions — Harbour Front's second attempt to wind up Money Facts & Fonfair
Decided 5 Oct 2017 · reasons 15 Feb 2018 · Harris J · [2018] HKCFRI 358
YK prevails

On 30 March and 2 April 2015, Harbour Front petitioned again to wind up Money Facts and Fonfair. Harris J found a compelling inference that Harbour Front's offers and proposals in March 2015 were not genuine but were made with a view to interfering in the sale of the Land to a purchaser named Chung Sing, as were the petitions themselves.

Heard over five days in June 2017. During the trial (7 June 2017), Harbour Front offered to pay Fonfair amounts to rectify the breaches identified in the 2004 Judgment. Fonfair rejected the offers on 15 August 2017. Harris J dismissed both petitions on 5 October 2017 (written reasons 15 February 2018), with costs to be paid by Harbour Front with a certificate for two counsel.

Harris J left the door open in principle: if Harbour Front were to take "genuine and substantial steps" to remedy its misconduct, its exclusion from management might cease to be fair. But on the evidence, that threshold had not been met.

Sources: HCCW 111/2015 (Harris J, reasons 15 Feb 2018, 37 pages); HCCW 116/2015; Schedule of Agreed Facts §§43–46.
CACV 68 & 69/2018
Harbour Front's appeal of the 2015 Petitions dismissal — withdrawn
Filed 15 Mar 2018 · Dismissed 28 Nov 2018 on Harbour Front's own application
YK prevails — appeal abandoned

On 15 March 2018, Harbour Front filed Notices of Appeal against Harris J's order dismissing the 2015 Petitions.

On 20 November 2018, Harbour Front itself filed a request for the dismissal of these appeals. On 28 November 2018, the Court of Appeal ordered the dismissal. No substantive judgment was delivered.

The timing is significant: Harbour Front abandoned these appeals just days after filing the new 2018 Petitions (12 November 2018) and obtaining the injunction against the public tender (23 November 2018). This appears to have been a tactical pivot — dropping the old appeals in favour of the new petitions, which took a different approach (arguing Harbour Front had now remedied its misconduct).
Source: Schedule of Agreed Facts §47, §55 (Annex). No separate judgment — consent dismissal on Harbour Front's application.

Third Wave · 2018–2024

2018

9 Oct 2018
Fonfair advertises public tender for sale of the Yau Tong Property. Closing date: 30 November 2018.
Schedule of Agreed Facts §72
12 Nov 2018
Harbour Front issues HCMP 1987/2018 and HCMP 1988/2018 — the third series of unfair prejudice petitions. Applies urgently for an injunction to block the public tender.
Schedule of Agreed Facts §74
HCMP 1987/2018 — Injunction ✓ in project
Harbour Front obtains injunction restraining sale of the Yau Tong Property
Decided 26 Nov 2018 · DHCJ Kenneth Wong · [2018] HKCFI 2596
Harbour Front prevails — injunction granted

On 12 November 2018, Harbour Front issued HCMP 1987/2018 (re Fonfair) and HCMP 1988/2018 (re Money Facts) — the third series of unfair prejudice petitions. Harbour Front argued it had now taken "active, serious and diligent steps" to remedy its misconduct and should be allowed to participate in the companies' management.

On 9 October 2018, Fonfair had published a public tender for the sale of the Yau Tong Property (closing 30 November). Harbour Front applied urgently for an injunction to block the sale.

On 23 November 2018, DHCJ Kenneth Wong granted an interlocutory injunction restraining YK (or through Money Facts) from causing Fonfair to dispose of or sell the Yau Tong Property without Harbour Front's prior approval or consent, pending determination of the petition. Harbour Front gave an undertaking as to damages and paid $4,149,411.76 into court. Most of Harbour Front's wider relief (participation in management) was rejected.

HCMP 1987A/2018 — LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED AT CFI (12 MAR 2019)

YK applied to DHCJ Kenneth Wong for leave to appeal the injunction. Wong refused on 12 March 2019, finding that YK was rehashing arguments already dealt with in the Reasons for Decision and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. Costs against YK.

Source: HCMP 1987A/2018 (DHCJ Kenneth Wong, 12 Mar 2019, 3 pages).

CAMP 46/2019 — LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED AT COURT OF APPEAL (23 AUG 2019)

YK renewed his leave application before the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP). Determined on the papers without a hearing. Leave refused — the Court found no reasonable prospect of success and no reason in the interest of justice to hear the appeal. The injunction was upheld.

Source: CAMP 46/2019 ([2019] HKCA 916, Kwan VP, 23 Aug 2019).

The injunction was Harbour Front's only substantive win in 20+ years of litigation. It was expressed to last "pending determination of the Petition or further order of the Court." The Petition was dismissed on 11 June 2024; the public tender that triggered the injunction closed on 30 November 2018. No formal discharge order has been located in the project documents. Harris J later characterised the injunction as "an abuse" in his 2024 liability judgment (§30 of HCMP001987B), finding that it interfered with Fonfair's management and prevented it operating according to its articles — including preventing the board from accepting the IDL offer of $910 million for the Yau Tong Property. Harbour Front's undertaking as to damages remains operative and there may be an enquiry as to damages still to come.
Sources: HCMP 1987/2018 (DHCJ Kenneth Wong, reasons 26 Nov 2018); HCMP 1987A/2018; CAMP 46/2019; Schedule of Agreed Facts §§72–75.
30 Nov 2018
Public tender for the Yau Tong Property closes. The injunction granted 7 days earlier prevented Fonfair from proceeding with any sale.
Schedule of Agreed Facts §73
2019

May 2019
IDL (via Savills) offers to purchase the Yau Tong Property at HK$888 million, later increased to HK$910 million. The injunction prevents Fonfair from accepting. This becomes the high-water mark for the property's value.
Schedule of Agreed Facts §§76–82
16 Sep 2019
YK files cross-petition HCMP 1471/2019, seeking an order that Harbour Front purchase his shares in Money Facts. This date later becomes the valuation date set by Harris J — now under appeal in CACV 158/2025.
Schedule of Agreed Facts §83
HCMP 1987/2018, 1988/2018 & 1471/2019 ✓ in project
Combined trial — Harbour Front's petitions dismissed; YK's cross-petition succeeds
Heard 4, 6, 11 Dec 2023 · Decided 11 Jun 2024 · Harris J · [2024] HKCFI 1599
YK prevails — buyout ordered

The three matters were heard together before Harris J. Harbour Front's petitions (HCMP 1987/2018 and 1988/2018) sought recognition of its remediation efforts and a return to management of the companies. YK's cross-petition (HCMP 1471/2019, filed 16 September 2019) sought an order that Harbour Front purchase his shares in Money Facts — effectively a buyout to end the quasi-partnership.

Harris J's findings:

(1) Harbour Front's remediation attempts were insufficient and not made in good faith. The "unequivocal" acceptance of the reconciliation exercise came 18 days after Harbour Front had already filed the 2018 Petitions, and Harbour Front sought to include a term that the reconciliation would "purge" its past breaches — which Fonfair's solicitors rightly objected to.

(2) The injunction obtained in November 2018 was "an abuse" that interfered with Fonfair's management and prevented it operating according to its articles. It prevented the board from accepting the IDL offer of $910 million for the Yau Tong Property.

(3) Whatever hope there was of re-establishing trust and confidence had been destroyed — and destroyed by Harbour Front's own conduct.

(4) Harris J noted that if YK had brought a cross-petition seeking a buyout order earlier, "he would certainly have been successful."

Orders: Harbour Front's petitions in HCMP 1987 and 1988 dismissed. In HCMP 1471, Harbour Front ordered to purchase YK's shares in Money Facts at a price to be determined by valuation. Costs: Harbour Front pays all respondents' costs in HCMP 1987/1988; Harbour Front pays YK's costs in HCMP 1471.

Sources: HCMP 1987B/2018 (Harris J, 11 Jun 2024, 22-page judgment + 13-page Annex of Agreed Facts). The Annex (Schedule of Agreed Facts, §§1–95) is a comprehensive agreed chronology covering the entire history and is the single best factual reference document for this litigation.
HCMP 1471/2019 — Stay application ✓ in project
Harbour Front's application to stay the buyout order — refused
Decided 22 Jul 2024 · Harris J
YK prevails — stay refused

Following the 11 June 2024 judgment ordering Harbour Front to purchase YK's shares, Harbour Front applied for a stay of execution pending appeal.

Harris J refused on 22 July 2024, finding: (1) Harbour Front had not demonstrated strong grounds of appeal; (2) the appeal would not be rendered nugatory without a stay, because the buyout would not practically complete until after any appeal was determined — the valuation process still had to run.

This was a pragmatic refusal rather than a punitive one. Harris J was not slamming the door on Harbour Front's right to appeal — he was observing that the built-in delay of the valuation process meant a stay added nothing. The buyout order exists but nothing irreversible happens before an appeal can be heard.
Source: HCMP 1471B/2019 (Harris J, 22 Jul 2024, 3 pages).

Quantum Phase · 2025–2026

2025

HCMP 1471/2019 — Quantum · [2025] HKCFI 1009 ✓ in project
Post-judgment directions — valuation date, expert process, interest
Heard 23 Jan 2025 · Decided 12 Mar 2025 · Harris J
Ongoing — valuation completed, awaiting court order

Following the June 2024 buyout order, Harris J heard an application on 23 January 2025 to resolve four outstanding issues: minority discount, expert evidence, valuation date, and interest. His decision was handed down on 12 March 2025.

Minority discount: Agreed by both parties — no discount, since the shareholdings are equal (§3).

Expert evidence: Ms Lok SC argued that the May 2019 IDL offer of HK$888 million provided a reliable basis for determining share value without a formal valuation. Harris J declined this as "too robust an approach" (§4), acknowledging the argument had "some justification" given the litigation history but preferring a formal process. Directions made for a single court-appointed valuer, with methodology at the valuer's professional discretion and no minority discount (Directions 3 and 8).

Valuation date: 16 September 2019 — the date YK filed his cross-petition (Direction 2). Harris J found that fairness "clearly points" to the petition date, citing Harbour Front's repeated improper conduct across three rounds of litigation. He stated that if Harbour Front has to pay more for the indirect interest in the land than it is currently worth, "that is not unfair; it is the result of the management of Harbour Front's belligerence and generally unreasonable behaviour" (§11). He rejected Harbour Front's argument that YK should have used the SHA shootout provision to exit earlier as "irrelevant" and "misconceived" (§12). He found it would be "manifestly unfair" for YK to bear the risk of post-petition asset value decline (§12).

Interest: Harris J declined YK's argument for interest from the valuation date. Drawing a careful distinction between price and loss (§§16–18), he found that interest from the valuation date would only be justified if YK could demonstrate additional financial loss beyond the unfair prejudice itself — which YK had not done (§19). Interest runs from the date of the liability judgment (11 June 2024) per Harbour Front's concession (§13).

Costs: No order as to costs of the quantum hearing (costs order nisi) (Direction 12).

Counsel: Frances Lok SC and Kwan Ping Kan (Ho & Ip) for YK. Clifford Smith SC, Sabrina Ho, and Arthur Poon (Yiu & Associates) for Harbour Front.

Source: HCMP 1471/2019 ([2025] HKCFI 1009, Harris J, 12 Mar 2025, 13 pages including Appendix of directions).
28 Apr 2025
Court order appointing PricewaterhouseCoopers Limited (Jonathan Chan, Director) as the single joint valuer pursuant to Direction 3.
PwC letter to Court, 13 Mar 2026
2026

13 Mar 2026
PwC submits Single Joint Valuation Report to the Court (62 pages, privileged & confidential). Copies delivered by hand to Ho & Ip (for YK) and Kyms Law Office (for Harbour Front). The Court will now make an order for payment and transfer of the shares pursuant to Direction 10.
PwC letter to Court, 13 Mar 2026; valuation report cover page

Live Appeals · Pending

CACV [no. unknown] case no. needed
Harbour Front's appeal of the buyout order
Pending · appealing Harris J's order of 11 Jun 2024 that Harbour Front purchase YK's shares
Pending appeal

Harbour Front is appealing Harris J's liability judgment of 11 June 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 1599), which dismissed Harbour Front's petitions in HCMP 1987/2018 and 1988/2018 and ordered Harbour Front to purchase YK's shares in Money Facts.

Harris J refused Harbour Front's application to stay execution of the buyout order on 22 July 2024, finding no strong grounds of appeal and noting that the buyout would not practically complete before any appeal was determined given the valuation process (HCMP001471B).

If this appeal succeeds, the buyout order would fall away and the entire quantum/valuation process would be moot. If it fails, the valuation proceeds as directed.

The scope of this appeal is not confirmed from the documents in the project. It may challenge Harris J's findings on Harbour Front's remediation efforts, the characterisation of the injunction as abusive, or the dismissal of the petitions generally. Harris J's refusal of the stay — on the basis that Harbour Front showed no strong grounds — is not determinative of the appeal's prospects but is an early indicator.
Case number to be confirmed with Ho & Ip. Harris J's stay refusal at HCMP 1471B/2019 (22 Jul 2024).
CACV 158/2025
Harbour Front's appeal of the valuation date
Pending · appealing Harris J's direction of 12 Mar 2025 setting 16 Sep 2019 as valuation date
Pending appeal

Harbour Front is appealing Harris J's choice of 16 September 2019 (the date of YK's cross-petition) as the valuation date for the share buyout. Harbour Front argues that a more recent valuation date should be used — in effect, that YK should bear the risk of the property market decline since 2019.

The commercial significance is substantial: the Yau Tong Property market was at or near its peak around 2019 (the IDL offer was $910 million in that year). A 2019 valuation date would result in a higher share price that Harbour Front must pay. A later date — say 2024 or 2025 — would likely produce a significantly lower figure reflecting the decline in Hong Kong property values.

Harris J chose the petition date as a matter of discretion, citing Re Sparkle Consultants (Hong Kong) Ltd [2002] 3 HKLRD 62, which establishes that the choice of valuation date is a discretionary matter to be exercised in light of the circumstances. At trial, Harbour Front had argued for the date of the order or alternatively November 2015; YK had argued for the IDL offer date or the petition date.

Harbour Front faces a high bar on appeal: it must persuade the Court of Appeal that Harris J's exercise of discretion was wrong in principle, not merely that a different date would have been preferable. Appellate courts are generally reluctant to disturb discretionary decisions on valuation methodology. However, the financial stakes are large enough that the appeal is commercially rational regardless of its legal prospects. Note: PwC has already completed its valuation report on the basis of the 16 September 2019 date (submitted to the Court on 13 March 2026). If this appeal succeeds and a later valuation date is substituted, the valuation would need to be redone — likely producing a significantly lower figure given the decline in Hong Kong property values since 2019.
CACV 158/2025 (pending). Harris J's reasoning on valuation date: HCMP 1471C/2019 §§4–13.

Document Inventory

IN PROJECT (✓) — FONFAIR THREAD · click to open document

HCCW 880/2001 — Kwan J, 2 Feb 2004 (winding-up petitions dismissed) · 62 pp

HCA 1886/2001 — DHCJ To, 25 Jan 2002 (Fonfair v Universal Dockyard) · 23 pp

HCA 1886A/2001 — DHCJ A Cheung, 19 Jun 2002 (stay of execution refused) · 6 pp

HCA 2002/2001 — Poon J, 24 Nov 2006 (committal proceedings dismissed) · 19 pp

HCA 2002A/2001 — Poon J, costs decision (companion to above) · 7 pp

HCA 1598/2008 — Recorder Kwok SC, 29 Aug 2008 (abuse of process) · 2 pp

HCA 1598A/2008 — Kwan J, 3 Sep 2008 (interim injunction pending appeal refused) · 5 pp

CACV 260/2008 — Ma CJHC, Rogers VP, 4 Sep 2008 (appeal dismissed, indemnity costs) · 7 pp

HCCW 111/2015 — Harris J, reasons 15 Feb 2018 (2015 petitions dismissed) · 37 pp

HCCW 116/2015 — companion petition to above · 10 pp

HCMP 1987/2018 — DHCJ Kenneth Wong, 26 Nov 2018 (injunction granted) · 24 pp

HCMP 1987A/2018 — DHCJ Kenneth Wong, 12 Mar 2019 (leave to appeal refused) · 3 pp

HCMP 1987B/2018 — Harris J, 11 Jun 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 1599 — judgment + Annex of Agreed Facts) · 35 pp

CAMP 46/2019 — Kwan VP, 23 Aug 2019 ([2019] HKCA 916 — CA leave refused) · 16 pp

HCMP 1471/2019 — DHCJ Sew-Tong SC (interlocutory directions) · 20 pp

HCMP 1471B/2019 — Harris J, 22 Jul 2024 (stay of execution refused) · 3 pp

HCMP 1471C/2019 — Harris J, 12 Mar 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1009 — quantum directions + Appendix) · 13 pp

20250312__Decision.pdf — Harris J, 12 Mar 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1009 — same decision, image-format copy) · 13 pp

PwC letter to Court — 13 Mar 2026 (submitting valuation report) · 1 p

PwC Single Joint Valuation Report — 13 Mar 2026 (privileged & confidential — contents not reproduced) · 62 pp

HK Companies — corporate structure documents · 54 pp

Trial Day 4 (11 Dec 2023) · 44 pp

Trial Day 1 (4 Dec 2023) · text transcript

Trial Day 2 (5 Dec 2023) · text transcript

Trial Day 3 (6 Dec 2023) · text transcript

IN PROJECT — SEPARATE MAP (YT BANKRUPTCY)

HCB002019_2000.pdf + variants A–H · CACV000271_2006.pdf · CACV000119_2006.pdf · HCMP000400_2022.pdf + variants A–B

TRACKED FOR FOLLOW-UP

CACV [no. unknown] — Harbour Front's appeal of the buyout order (Harris J, 11 Jun 2024). Case number to be confirmed with Ho & Ip.

CACV 158/2025 — Harbour Front's appeal of the valuation date (Harris J, 12 Mar 2025). Pending.

HCA 1937/2007 — referenced by Rogers VP in CACV 260/2008 §10 as a prior Harbour Front action. No judgment located. Details unknown — to be confirmed with Ho & Ip.

Enquiry as to damages — Harbour Front's undertaking as to damages from the November 2018 injunction remains operative. No proceedings commenced yet.

Harbour Front's solicitors — appears to have changed from Yiu & Associates (at Jan 2025 hearing) to Kyms Law Office (per PwC letter CC list, Mar 2026). To be confirmed.