CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal refused because the judge correctly applied the substance test and Spiliada balancing to conclude the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong, there is no realistic prospect that a novel contention (displacing Hong Kong law by reference to the governing contract or foreign public policy) would...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 567
Parties
Plaintiff (in Liquidation): China Medical Technologies Inc; Plaintiff: CMED Technologies Ltd; 1st Defendant (a Firm): Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; 2nd Defendant (a Firm): Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 April 2020
Case Number
HCA3272/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil: Professional Negligence, Jurisdictional Challenge, Choice of Law / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision (stay/forum Non Conveniens)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Substance Test, Double Actionability Rule, Red Sea Exception, Choice of Law for Torts, In Pari Delicto Defence, Juridical Advantage, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure Tort Contract Private International Law Professional Negligence Forum Non Conveniens Substance Test +6 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Medical Technologies Inc

Plaintiff (in Liquidation)

CMED Technologies Ltd

Plaintiff

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

1st Defendant (a Firm)

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

2nd Defendant (a Firm)

Procedural Posture

Civil: Professional Negligence, Jurisdictional Challenge, Choice of Law / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision (stay/forum Non Conveniens)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judge's interlocutory decision
  2. 2 Proper test to locate the place of the tort (application of the substance test)
  3. 3 Whether double actionability/Red Sea exception or foreign public policy (in pari delicto) displaces Hong Kong law

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the judge correctly applied the substance test and Spiliada balancing to conclude the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong, there is no realistic prospect that a novel contention (displacing Hong Kong law by reference to the governing contract or foreign public policy) would succeed, and no error of principle or material fact that justifies appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi that the defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs, to be taxed if not agreed