LEUNG YIN MING v. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

HCMP 2/2026

[2026] HKCFI 1594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  This is an application by Originating Summons dated 2 January 2026 (“OS”) by the Plaintiff (“P”) against the Defendants (“the Banks”) pursuant to s. 21 of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap. 8 (“EO”) and the inherent jurisdiction of the court for discovery of documents (namely, bank statements and last known address of the account holders).

2.  P is a victim of a telephone fraud and as a result her monies in her bank account (“P’s Account”) totaling HK$4,712,235.82 (“the Sums”), had been transferred out by the fraudster(s). It appears from the transaction records of P’s Account that the Sums were transferred to two accounts maintained with the Banks between 10 June 2025 and 17 July 2025.

3.  The Banks have been served and have indicated their neutral position towards the application. They have reached agreement with P on the terms of the order to be made and a Draft Order has been submitted to me by Ms Lam, solicitors, appearing for P. The Banks’ attendance have been excused by me and did not appear.

4.  The applicable principles for Norwich Pharmacal relief are well‑settled. It is not a usual order and will not be lightly granted in the absence of powerful factors:

(1)  It is made against an innocent party whose only involvement is to become mixed up in the tortious or wrongful activities of others;

(2)  The wrongdoing exists only on the part of a person or persons against whom no relief may be sought at the stage of the application and against whom there is probably insufficient evidence to found an action;

(3)  There will usually be a legal relationship between the innocent person against whom a discovery order is sought and the alleged wrongdoer, and the relationship may involve strict duties to be observed on the innocent party’s part. Any discovery to be made will involve a breach of confidentiality and may expose the innocent party to civil liability and possibly even criminal liability; and

(4)  The court must accordingly balance the competing interests of the victim of the alleged wrongdoing and an innocent party caught up in the wrongdoing.

See A Co v B Co [2002] 3 HKLRD 111 at §12 per Ma J (as he then was).

5.  In A Co v B Co at §13, the main requirements for Norwich Pharmacal relief were set out:

(1)  There must be cogent and compelling evidence to demonstrate that serious tortious or wrongful activities have taken place (where fraud or similar serious allegations are made, the degree of proof must correspondingly be high);

(2)  It must be clearly demonstrated that the order will or will very likely reap substantial and worthwhile benefits for the plaintiff, and where a tracing claim is likely to be made there must be a serious possibility that the discovery sought will either allow the plaintiff to preserve what may well be his assets or realistically lead to the discovery of such assets; and

(3)  The discovery sought must not be unduly wide, so an order must be specific and also restricted to those documents or those classes of documents that are necessary to enable the plaintiff to preserve or discover assets.

6.  The applicable principles governing an order under s. 21 of EO are also well-established. The main test is relevance in that it must be shown that the information sought contains materials germane to an issue to be tried between the parties: see e.g. Chan Wai Sun & Anor v Law Shiu Kai Andrew [2003] 3 HKLRD 954 per Chu J (as she then was) at §10.

7.  Furthermore, although it has been said that such order is justified where the plaintiff seeks to trace funds which in equity belongs to him and of which there was strong evidence that he has been fraudulently deprived, there are 3 limits:

(1)  Firstly, the plaintiff must demonstrate a real prospect that the information may lead to the location or preservation of assets to which he is making a proprietary claim;

(2)  Secondly, the documents sought to be disclosed must be identified with some specificity as would be expected of a subpoena; and

(3)  Thirdly, the court needs to balance the potential advantage against the detriment to the person against whom the order is sought, not merely in terms of costs but by way of invasion of privacy and requiring breach of obligations of confidence to others.

See CTO (H.K.) Limited v Li Man Chiu & Others [2002] 2 HKLRD 875, §§12-13 per Deputy Judge Poon (as he then was); and Hwang Joon Sang & Anor v Golden Electronics Inc. & Ors (No 2) [2021] 2 HKLRD 87 at §§8-9 per Coleman J.

8.  Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the orders sought, whether under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction of the court or under s. 21 of EO, should be granted against the Banks.

9.  Firstly, I am satisfied that there is cogent and compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that a prima facie case of wrong being committed against P.

10.  Secondly, I am satisfied that there is a real prospect that the requested documents would reap real and substantial benefit to P and they are germane to P’s proprietary claim to the Sums. There is a real prospect the information would enable P to trace the whereabouts of the Sums or their traceable proceeds and to take legal action against the ultimate recipients of the Sums for their preservation and recovery.

11.  Thirdly, I am satisfied that the discovery sought is specifically defined and not unduly wide being limited to the period the Sums were transferred out of P’s Account to the date of order. I have also taken into account the neutral stance adopted by the Banks that have not suggested any difficulty in complying with the orders sought.

12.  Having balanced the competing interest of the victim and the innocent party (the Banks) caught up in the wrongdoing, and mindful that the power to order disclosure should be exercised with great caution, I would make an order in terms of the Draft Order (as amended by me).