Compliance with Hong Kong Injunctions after Leong Ma Li

Summary

The Court of Final Appeal has just recast the law on contempt relating to Hong Kong injunctions. In Leong Ma Li v High Fashion New Media Corporation Limited [2026] HKCFA 18, handed down on 21 April 2026, the Court clarified what recipients of an injunction are actually required to do, and what those who apply for one must draft. 

The Court held that you can be in contempt only for what you (or those acting on your behalf) actually do or fail to do, and that any positive duty to take preventive steps must be set out in the order itself rather than read in by a court afterwards. 

Key takeaways

• Liability for breach of a Hong Kong injunction is for your own acts or omissions; "vicarious liability" is not the correct test.
• Two distinct legal tests govern when a third party's conduct can put you in breach: the Imputation Basis and the Implied Term Basis.
• Any positive duty the applicant intends should be drafted expressly into the order; courts will be slow to imply one.
• Interlocutory injunctions left dormant for years are now more vulnerable to challenge on abuse-of-process grounds.

The case in brief

A minority shareholder of a Hong Kong joint venture was made the subject of a 2014 injunction restraining her from dealing with the company's Shanghai bank account except under a dual-signatory protocol. The substantive action then sat dormant for a decade.

In 2017 the shareholder withdrew from the joint venture's day-to-day affairs. She resigned as chairman of the Shanghai subsidiary, instructed the local financial controller in writing to seek shareholder approval for any operating expenses, and surrendered her personal seal. The financial controller, who by then took direction from the majority shareholder, went on to make RMB 64.7 million of internal transfers between 2016 and 2020. None benefited Ms Leong.

The lower courts found her in contempt of the 2014 injunction, treating the financial controller as her agent. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously disagreed and set the contempt order aside.

What the Court decided

Three points define the new framework.

First, you are only liable in contempt for your own acts or omissions. The label "vicarious liability" has no place in this area. The question is whether you yourself acted, or failed to act, in breach of the order.

Second, the Court set out two distinct legal tests for when someone else's conduct can put you in breach of an injunction. 

Under the first (the Imputation Basis) the acts of those operating within the actual authority you have given them count as your own. 

Under the second (the Implied Term Basis) you can come under a positive duty to take steps to prevent breaches by persons under your control. 

The Court noted that any positive duty intended by the applicant should be drafted expressly into the order; courts will be slow to read such a positive duty into an order that is otherwise a prohibition.

Third, plaintiffs cannot employ interim injunctions as a form of final relief. Ribeiro PJ observed that it is "plainly incumbent on a plaintiff who actively seeks interlocutory injunctive relief to progress the action". Injunctions left dormant for years and used only as standing leverage can invite challenge for abuse of process.

What this means for those facing an injunction

• Read the order carefully and do what it says. If the scope of a positive duty is unclear on the face of the order, seek clarification or variation. Do not wait for a contempt application to settle the question.
• It is possible to breach an injunction by negligent failure to control persons who can be controlled by you if the injunction expresses such a positive duty.
• An employer remains on the hook for what its employees do within the scope of their employment. Negligent failure to prevent a breach is not excused.
• Long-standing orders deserve a fresh look. An interim order aimed at preserving a state of affairs in a substantive case which has seen no recent progress may now be vulnerable to discharge.

What this means for those seeking an injunction

• Spell out any positive duty necessary to protect your interests in the order itself. Do not rely on a court to fill the gaps later.
• Follow through with the substantive action. Treating an injunction as permanent leverage invites strike-out for abuse of process.

How we can help

We regularly advise financial institutions and corporations on compliance with Hong Kong injunctions, including Mareva freezing orders, ancillary disclosure orders, Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders, employment and confidentiality restraints.

For further enquiries, please contact:

Anson Douglas at anson.douglas@helmsmanlaw.com