Litigation Conduct Under Scrutiny: Strong Petrochemical Holdings Limited v Jun He Law Offices [2025] HKCFI 5281

In Strong Petrochemical Holdings Limited (海峽石油化工控股有限公司) v Jun He Law Offices [2025] HKCFI 5281, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (Court) ordered Jun He Law Offices (Jun He), the former solicitors of a Hong Kong listed company, Strong Petrochemical Holdings Limited (海峽石油化工控股有限公司) (SPHL), to deliver up all of SPHL’s documents which are in Jun He’s possession, custody, power or control including those set out in a schedule attached to SPHL's Originating Summons (Requested Documents). The DLA Piper team representing SPHL is led by Harris Chan (Partner), assisted by Rita Chow (Senior Associate) and Sapphira Choi (Associate).

 

BACKGROUND

Jun He was SPHL's legal adviser until around 22 January 2025. On 25 January 2025, SPHL convened an extraordinary general meeting by the Court’s order dated 17 January 2025, whereby SPHL's previous management was removed. Thereafter SPHL repeatedly requested Jun He to provide documents. Jun He did not produce the documents sought: The initial reasons given were that it no longer acted for SPHL and that the documents requested had been previously provided to SPHL when Jun He was engaged by SPHL. Later, Jun He accused SPHL's present solicitors of conflict of interest. As a result, SPHL commenced these proceedings against Jun He. Jun He acknowledged service but did not file any evidence by the deadline provided under the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A). SPHL therefore applied for final judgment against Jun He, with hearing fixed to be held on 30 October 2025.

 

JUN HE'S APPLICATIONS FOR TIME EXTENSION

1^st application for time extension

After the hearing was scheduled, Jun He issued a summons applying for a 56-day time extension to file and serve its affirmation in opposition (First Summons). If granted, it would mean the hearing on 30 October 2025, which is a milestone date, would have to be vacated. Jun He did not file any affirmation to support the First Summons and to explain any exceptional circumstances justifying the moving of a milestone date. Jun He also did not file any hearing bundle or skeleton submissions to assist the Court to understand the reasons of its application, which would be necessary given the circumstances.

During the hearing of the First Summons held on 8 October 2025, Johnson Stokes & Master representing Jun He explained that (a) they were only instructed 2 days before this hearing, (b) they needed time to review the papers of the case, and (c) Jun He’s partner in charge of the case was busy with 2 other cases, and did not have time to give instructions. 

The Court held that none of the reasons proffered (i.e. change of legal representation and professional schedule of Jun He) were good let alone exceptional circumstances to justify moving a milestone date. The Court refused to grant a 56-day extension and inquired whether there was any counter-proposal on the timetable which would enable the substantive hearing on 30 October 2025 to proceed as scheduled. SPHL proposed a timetable which was accepted by Jun He, including for Jun He to file and serve its affirmation in opposition by 15 October 2025.

2^nd and 3^rd applications for time extension

On 15 October 2025, Jun He issued another summons for time extension to file and serve its affirmation in opposition from 15 October 2025 to 17 October 2025 (Second Summons). Yet, on 17 October 2025, Jun He issued a third summons seeking to amend the Second Summons so that Jun He would have until 21 October 2025 (instead of 17 October 2025) to file and serve its affirmation (Third Summons). In view of the concessions made by Jun He in its affirmation in opposition, namely that Jun He was willing to produce the Requested Documents subject to certain caveats, SPHL would not file any reply affidavit, and thus the Court granted the Second and Third Summonses by consent. 

However, the Court held that it would have dismissed the Second and Third Summonses but for the parties' consent, since the extension would in all likelihood have derailed the hearing on 30 October 2025. In the circumstances, it was incumbent for Jun He to file an affirmation to explain itself, and in particular to give details of any exceptional justification for the delay and the extension sought. Jun He filed an affirmation to support the Third Summons only, which the Court was of the view wholly inadequate and disclosed no good reason to justify the extension sought, especially since Jun He expressly agreed to the 15 October 2025 deadline during the hearing of the First Summons. No affirmation was even filed to justify the Second Summons. 

More importantly, the Second Summons was issued on the day of the deadline of 15 October 2025, whereas the Third Summons was issued on 17 October 2025, which would have been the new deadline had the Second Summons been granted. The Third Summons asked for an extension until 21 October 2025, on which day Jun He filed its first meaningful responsive evidence. The Court in particular did not appreciate being presented by Jun He with what was effectively a fait accompli (meaning a situation that is irreversible and other people have to live with). Such litigation conduct would, in an appropriate case, justify the Court ordering costs on an indemnity basis, which the Court therefore ordered against Jun He. 

 

THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS

On 21 October 2025, Jun He filed an affidavit where it opposed SPHL's Originating Summons but nevertheless confirmed it was prepared to deliver the Requested Documents subject to certain caveats. The main caveats were:

1. Jun He claimed that certain of the Requested Documents could not be delivered up to SPHL without the consent from certain “relevant regulator(s)” (Protected Documents). For those documents, Jun He argued that the Court should order the delivery up of them within 14 days of Jun He receiving consent.
2. SPHL shall pay Jun He HK$386,400 as “costs of complying with” the order to be made.
3. Jun He should be entitled to costs of SPHL's Originating Summons.

The Protected Documents

Jun He initially said they were not at liberty to divulge even to the Court the identity of any of the relevant regulator(s). Jun He eventually disclosed in its skeleton filed for the hearing on 30 October 2025 that one such regulator was the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK), but resolutely still refused to disclose whether the SEHK was the only regulator from which consent was said to be required or whether there were other regulator(s). Jun He argued that Jun He took the position it did given its genuine concern about the statutory secrecy obligation, and it was hampered from disclosing too much in its evidence based on the legal team’s analysis of the law. Jun He cited section 378 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571), and said that it was “cautious but not obstructive” in seeking the necessary consent.

The Court disagreed:

1. If there were any serious concern about secrecy obligation, there are mechanisms in civil procedure that would enable a party to inform the Court of all the relevant facts. It is objectionable for a party relying on secrecy obligation but not telling the Court what the real concern is, as the Court cannot simply take a party’s word for it.

2. Sections 378(2)(e) and 378(7)(v) expressly provide that the statutory secrecy obligation does not apply to bar disclosure of information in accordance with a Court order. The Court would have thought that a cautious and non-obstructive respondent in Jun He's position should have remained neutral instead of raising a last minute point insisting that production should not be made without the consent of the SEHK and possibly other undisclosed “relevant regulator(s)”. If the Court granted an order for production of documents, that order should be sufficient to address any concern about potential breaches of the statutory secrecy obligation.

Costs of compliance

The Court held that the costs of compliance of HK$386,400 claimed by Jun He was excessive and unreasonable, especially since the Requested Documents were defined clearly, and this was not a discovery exercise where one would need to study the pleadings in order to identify the documents relevant to the pleaded issues. It followed that someone relatively junior should be able to handle the work (or the bulk of it). Jun He's combination of personnel deployed (3 partners and 1 associate) could hardly be said to be reasonable. Additionally, the previous retainer could not justify the hourly rates that Jun He proposed to use in its claim for compliance costs since that retainer was for work of a different nature. The Court therefore only ordered HK$50,000 as compliance costs. 

Costs of SPHL's Originating Summons

The Court held that SPHL was clearly the substantive or effective winner. Had it not come to Court (and spent the time and costs it did), it would not have obtained the relief it wanted. In particular, prior to the issuance of the Originating Summons, Jun He effectively “stone-walled” SPHL's requests for documents. Moreover, it was untenable in the present case for Jun He to on the one hand make a last-minute concession to agree to the order sought in the Originating Summons but on the other hand apply for indemnity costs on the basis SPHL would have lost. The Court agrees with the approach in Central Medical Holdings Ltd v Tsang Wah Tak Kenneth [2025] HKCFI 4653, namely, where a matter is resolved without substantive argument, the starting point is to ask which party succeeded, and the Court should not be required or spend time dealing with speculative arguments about what might or might not have happened if one or other of the parties had dealt with the matter differently. 

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

This case serves as a clear reminder of the importance of principled litigation conduct before the Hong Kong Courts, as the Court’s firm stance against unjustified time extension applications, reliance on secrecy obligation without giving the Court details, and excessive cost claims underscores the expectation that parties and their legal representatives act with candor, efficiency, and respect for procedural timelines.

Notably, the Court rejected Jun He’s attempt to withhold information and documents under the guise of statutory secrecy, emphasizing that genuine concerns about confidentiality must be substantiated as the Court cannot just take a party's word for it. Attempts to delay proceedings without exceptional justification, or to present the Court with a fait accompli, risk adverse cost consequences and judicial criticism. Ultimately, strategic litigation maneuvers must be balanced against the duty to assist the Court and the overarching goal of achieving a fair and expeditious resolution.

Legal practitioners should ensure that all applications to the Court are supported by clear, substantive evidence and exceptional justification where required. Transparency in dealings with the Court, realistic cost assessments, and proactive case management are essential. By prioritizing ethical advocacy and procedural compliance, practitioners not only safeguard their clients’ interests but also uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Judgment can be found here.