 [2023] HKCA 594, a judgment handed down on 21 April 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals (heard together) after thorough analyses of the applicability of the bar against reflective loss to a former shareholder.

The Court examined the recent cases of (1) 

 [2021] AC 39, in which the UK Supreme Court held that the reflective loss rule is a principle of company law having its roots in the proper plaintiff rule in 

, and not a procedural rule concerned only with the avoidance of double recovery; and (2) 

Primeo Fund (in official liquidation) v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd

 [2021] UKPC 22, in which the Privy Council held (amongst other things) that the relevant time to assess whether the rule against reflective loss applies is when the alleged loss is suffered, not the timing of the bringing of a claim.

The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) had in 

 (2008) 11 HKCFAR 370 (a case also involving members of Temple Chambers) and 

 (2017) 20 HKCFAR 384 pronounced on the reflective loss rule, referring to the avoidance of double recovery. In this regard, the Court of Appeal considered themselves bound by those decisions. That said, as the CFA held that a shareholder cannot claim for loss which was merely reflective of the loss suffered by the company is a “matter of principle”, the fact that the reflective loss rule was justified by the avoidance of double recovery did not turn the principle into a mere procedural rule.

Applying the principles to the facts, as the Court found that the diminution in the value of the shares must have crystallised before the former shareholder sold his shares, the nature of his loss was reflective. The subsequent sale of those shares did not alter this nature of the loss, because in selling his shares, the shareholder was only liquidating or quantifying the loss which he had suffered. The fact that the claim was brought only after the sale of shares did not make any difference. Hence, the claim was barred by the rule and the judge was right to strike out the claim.

The Court therefore dismissed the appeals.

, instructed by Jones Day, acted for the 1

, instructed by King & Wood Mallesons, acted for the 3

香港高等法院上诉法庭于2023年4月21日就

 [2023] HKCA 594一案下达判决，针对反射性损失不容追讨原则对前股东的适用性进行了彻底分析之后，驳回了两项上诉（一并审理）。

上诉法庭参考了两个近期案例：（1）

 [2021] AC 39一案中，英国最高法院裁定反射性损失原则为一项公司法原则，其根源可追溯到

中的适当原告原则，而并非一项仅为了避免重复赔偿的程序法则；以及（2）

 [2021] UKPC 22一案中，英国枢密院裁定，用以评估反射性损失原则是否适用的相关时间点应为损失发生之时，而不是于提起索赔的时间。

 (2008) 11 HKCFAR 370（天博大律师事务所成员亦参与此案）和

 (2017) 20 HKCFAR 384两起案件中亦明确反射性损失原则，提及避免重复赔偿的问题。就此，上诉法院认为本案判决应受这些判例的约束。然而，由于终审法院认为股东不能就仅反映公司蒙受损失的损失提出索赔是一个「原则问题」，因此反射性损失原则基于避免双重追偿的合理性这一事实并未使该原则成为一项单纯的程序性原则。

将此原则适用于本案的事实，法院认定股份价值的减少在前股东出售其股份之前就已明确，因此他的损失是具有反射性质的。而随后出售这些股份并不会改变此损失的性质，因为股东在出售股份时，只对他所遭受的损失进行清算或计算。该前股东在售出股份后才提出索赔这一事实并未造成任何分别。因此，该索赔理应受到反射性损失原则的限制，原讼法庭法官驳回该索赔的理据亦充足。因此，上诉被驳回。

受众达国际法律事务所（Jones Day）委托代表第一被告（原讼讼）；由何耀棣律师事务所委托的

（Bonnie Cheng）代表第二被告（反诉讼）；

（Victor Lui）受金杜律师事务所委托代表第三被告（反诉讼）。

香港高等法院上訴法庭於2023年4月21日就

 [2023] HKCA 594一案下達判決，針對反射性損失不容追討原則對前股東的適用性進行了徹底分析之後，駁回了兩項上訴（一併審理）。

上訴法庭參考了兩個近期案例：（1）

 [2021] AC 39一案中，英國最高法院裁定反射性損失原則為一項公司法原則，其根源可追溯到

中的適當原告原則，而並非一項僅為了避免重複賠償的程序法則；以及（2）

 [2021] UKPC 22一案中，英國樞密院裁定，用以評估反射性損失原則是否適用的相關時間點應為損失發生之時，而不是於提起索賠的時間。

 (2008) 11 HKCFAR 370（天博大律師事務所成員亦參與此案）和

 (2017) 20 HKCFAR 384兩起案件中亦明確反射性損失原則，提及避免重複賠償的問題。就此，上訴法院認為本案判決應受這些判例的約束。然而，由於終審法院認為股東不能就僅反映公司蒙受損失的損失提出索賠是一個「原則問題」，因此反射性損失原則基於避免双重追偿的合理性这一事实并未使该原则成爲一项单纯的程序性原則。

將此原則適用於本案的事實，法院認定股份價值的減少在前股東出售其股份之前就已明確，因此他的損失是具有反射性質的。而隨後出售這些股份並不會改變此損失的性質，因為股東在出售股份時，只對他所遭受的損失進行清算或計算。該前股東在售出股份後才提出索賠這一事實並未造成任何分別。因此，該索賠理應受到反射性損失原則的限制，原訟法庭法官駁回該索賠的理據亦充足。因此，上訴被駁回。

受眾達國際法律事務所（Jones Day）委托代表第一被告（原訟訟）；由何耀棣律師事務所委托的

(Bonnie Cheng)代表第二被告（反訴訟）；

（Victor Lui）受金杜律師事務所委托代表第三被告（反訴訟）。

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Hong Kong Court of Appeal Elucidates the Law on Reflective Loss

About

Members

Recruitment

What’s New