KONINLJIKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. UTRAN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD.

KONINLJIKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. UTRAN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD.

The ordinance remained valid after the handover; Article 96 does not invalidate existing legislation and is relevant only to future arrangements; section 3 confers a discretionary power on the Chief Executive in Council to include or retain countries notwithstanding present lack of reciprocity; therefore the inclusion of the Netherlands is not unconstitutional and the registration of the Hague judgment was properly made and must stand.

Citation
KONINLJIKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. UTRAN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.; Defendant/appellant: UTRAN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 October 2001
Case Number
HCMP4509/2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment; Enforcement Proceedings Under Foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance / Hearing of Appeal in Court of First Instance (deputy High Court Judge Woolley), Appeal From Master Jones Decision Dated 15 June 2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reciprocity, Foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap.319, Article 96 Basic Law, Registration of Judgment, Treaty Continuity
Source Language
EN
Private International Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Reciprocity Foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap.319 Article 96 Basic Law Registration of Judgment +1 more

Case Brief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.

Plaintiff/respondent

UTRAN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment; Enforcement Proceedings Under Foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance / Hearing of Appeal in Court of First Instance (deputy High Court Judge Woolley), Appeal From Master Jones Decision Dated 15 June 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 96 of the Basic Law and absence of a new treaty with the Netherlands render the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance inapplicable to Dutch judgments
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Executive in Council is obliged to revoke inclusion of a country when reciprocity ceases
  3. 3 Whether the ordinance is unconstitutional insofar as it continues to apply to the Netherlands post-1 July 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The ordinance remained valid after the handover; Article 96 does not invalidate existing legislation and is relevant only to future arrangements; section 3 confers a discretionary power on the Chief Executive in Council to include or retain countries notwithstanding present lack of reciprocity; therefore the inclusion of the Netherlands is not unconstitutional and the registration of the Hague judgment was properly made and must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi for costs in favour of the plaintiff to be taxed