Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anti-arbitration injunction

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2025

XX, YY AND OTHERS v. ZZ

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT136/2024

The court held the Tribunal has jurisdiction over Claims 1–3 because the claims for indemnity and breach of warranties are properly connected to and arise out of the 2017 SPA (the contract that makes the 3rd–10th Plaintiffs Warrantors and provides joint and several indemnities); the 2017 SPA is the centre of gravity for the claims and the pleadings are not artificial; allowing a separate tribunal under the 2021 SPA would fragment related issues and risk inconsistent findings.
16 May 2025

李鳳欣 AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST TRADE INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2004
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT83/2024

The court refused a broad anti-arbitration injunction because there was a prima facie valid arbitration agreement and jurisdictional/procedural challenges including the institution/seat issue should be decided first by the arbitral tribunal (with court review under s34 AO available). However, the court granted a limited anti-arbitration injunction restraining the Defendant from pursuing its liquidated damages claim against the Plaintiffs in the Current Arbitration because that issue (enforceability of the liquidated damages clause) had been finally determined by the prior Beijing Award as pen…
18 May 2023

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT98/2022

The court refused to grant the wide anti-arbitration injunction sought. It held that the New Arbitration, insofar as it pursues termination under PRC law (Article 580) and other issues arising under the Agreement, is within the defendants' rights to submit to arbitration and is not by itself vexatious. However, the court granted a limited injunction restraining the defendants from pursuing in the New Arbitration any claim or assertion that the Plaintiff's damages claim in HCCL 13 is in substance a claim for breach of the Agreement and/or that assessment of those damages should be determined u…
25 Nov 2022

EXCEL JUMBO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CYBERNAUT GREENTECH INVESTMENT HOLDING (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP222/2022

Leave to bring the statutory derivative action was granted because the applicant demonstrated serious issues to be tried based on credible sworn evidence and documentary discrepancies and it was prima facie in the Company’s interests to pursue the claims; an interlocutory anti‑arbitration injunction was granted because continuation of the CIETAC arbitration would be vexatious, oppressive and unconscionable in the circumstances, would risk rendering an award that furthers the alleged conspiracy, and would not cause injustice to PIL.
4 Nov 2011

SA AND ANOTHER v. KB

Citation

SA AND ANOTHER v. KB
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT24/2011

The court held it had jurisdiction under section 21L High Court Ordinance to grant an injunction in appropriate cases to restrain a party from continuing an arbitration, but must do so only sparingly and where continuation would be vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of process. Applying that test and the required standard on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiffs failed to show the arbitration's continuance would be vexatious or oppressive; the Guangdong proceedings were not sufficiently advanced or concluded to create a real risk of conflicting decisions and the arbitrators had already…

Hong Kong Case Law

XX, YY AND OTHERS v. ZZ

李鳳欣 AND ANOTHER v. HARVEST TRADE INVESTMENTS LTD

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER

EXCEL JUMBO INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CYBERNAUT GREENTECH INVESTMENT HOLDING (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

SA AND ANOTHER v. KB