中国民生信托有限公司 v. FU KWAN

中国民生信托有限公司 v. FU KWAN

The Court held the Beijing Rulings did not order the defendant to pay a sum of money within the meaning of s5(2)(e) Cap.597 and therefore were not registrable as Mainland judgments under the Ordinance; accordingly the registrations were set aside, while the other pleaded grounds for setting aside were rejected.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 590
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Case Number
HCMP1943/2022
Procedural Posture
Registration and Setting Aside of Mainland Judgments Under Mainland Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (cap.597) / Decision on Summonses to Set Aside Registrations
Outcome
Registrations of the Beijing Rulings dated 1 December 2020 set aside
Legal Topics
Registration of Mainland Judgments, Choice of Mainland Court Agreement, Public Policy, Natural Justice/summons to Appear, Enforceability, Calculation of Interest, Guarantee Agreements, Article 238 PRC Enforcement Regime
Source Language
en
Private International Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Contract Law Bankruptcy Law Registration of Mainland Judgments Choice of Mainland Court Agreement Public Policy +5 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Registration and Setting Aside of Mainland Judgments Under Mainland Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (cap.597) / Decision on Summonses to Set Aside Registrations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 12.2 of the guarantee agreements constitutes a choice of Mainland court agreement within s3(2) Cap.597
  2. 2 Whether the Beijing Rulings order the payment of a sum of money within s5(2)(e) Cap.597
  3. 3 Whether the registrations were made in contravention of the Ordinance (s18(1)(b))

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Beijing Rulings did not order the defendant to pay a sum of money within the meaning of s5(2)(e) Cap.597 and therefore were not registrable as Mainland judgments under the Ordinance; accordingly the registrations were set aside, while the other pleaded grounds for setting aside were rejected.

Court Disposition

Registrations of the Beijing Rulings dated 1 December 2020 set aside

Orders

  • Registrations of the Rulings set aside on ground that the Rulings do not satisfy s5(2)(e) Cap.597 as they do not order payment of a sum of money
  • Costs order nisi: plaintiff to bear 25% of defendant's costs of the Summonses with certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed