Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anti-suit injunction

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

RUSCHEMALLIANCE LLC v. LINDE GMBH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 763
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP62/2026

Leave to appeal and the stay were refused because the Court of Appeal concluded the Judge had not erred in law or in principle in making the Hadkinson order: the five conditions were properly applied and satisfied on the facts, there was a sufficient nexus between the contempts and the set‑aside application, the Model Law does not impose a duty that displaces the court's discretionary power to make a Hadkinson order, and indemnity costs were within the Judge's discretion given deliberate and continuing contempt.
23 Apr 2026

FIRST LASER LTD AND ANOTHER v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 564
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV396/2025

Special circumstances existed because the 1st plaintiff is Macau incorporated, the 2nd plaintiff is Macanese, the 1st plaintiff has failed to discharge substantial taxed costs, and enforcement of a costs order would likely be difficult and expensive; plaintiffs offered no countervailing evidence or submissions on merits; exercising its residual discretion and applying a broad‑brush approach to quantum, the court ordered security of HK$2,000,000, stayed the appeal until payment, provided for dismissal in default and awarded costs of the application of HK$100,000 to the defendants.
11 Feb 2026

G, G v. CNG AND SIL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT17/2025

Article 34 as adopted in section 81 provides the exclusive means of challenging arbitral awards at the seat and must be given a broad operation to preserve finality and certainty; the Bribery Arbitration in substance seeks to set aside or nullify the Awards and to unwind rights granted by them and therefore constitutes a non-compliant collateral attack and breach of the arbitration agreement; CNG failed to meet the stringent Takhar threshold and its delay and prior affirmatory conduct rendered its allegations abusive; accordingly the court must protect its supervisory jurisdiction and grant a…
11 Feb 2026

G, G v. CNG AND SIL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT66/2023

The court held that the Bribery Arbitration in substance sought to impugn and unwind existing arbitral awards and to evade the exclusive statutory mechanism in Article 34 / s81; such challenges are within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court, are non-arbitrable in this context and constitute an abuse of process; accordingly an injunction restraining the Bribery Arbitration was justified and the stay applications were dismissed.
11 Feb 2026

G, G v. CNG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT123/2025

The court held that the Bribery Arbitration's Set Aside and Rescission/Damages claims are in substance direct or collateral attacks on prior arbitral Awards and court enforcement orders and therefore fall within the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court under Article 34/section 81; the arbitration thus breaches the parties' agreement on the seat and supervisory forum and constitutes an abuse of process. Accordingly an injunction restraining the Bribery Arbitration was granted and CNG's applications to stay enforcement were dismissed.
11 Nov 2025

P v. D

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT107/2025

On the evidence and authorities the court reached a provisional conclusion that there was at least a prima facie (and if necessary compelling) case that the disputes concerning the Alleged Settlement Agreement fall within the ambit of the wide arbitration clauses in the Agreements because the Alleged Settlement Agreement derives from and settles issues under those Agreements and draft supplemental deeds incorporated arbitration; the applicant acted promptly; comity and delay did not outweigh enforcement of the arbitration agreement; substituted service was properly ordered given game playing;…
21 Oct 2025

HYALROUTE COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 936
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV600/2025

The Summons for an interim anti-suit injunction was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to show a real prospect of success on appeal: although the construction ground was reasonably arguable, the Plaintiff's defence to the debt was not reasonably arguable (found hopeless and frivolous), so there was no basis for an ASI pending appeal.
10 Oct 2025

X v. Y

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT76/2025

The court granted an anti-suit injunction restraining the BVI winding-up (WU) proceedings because the Defendant had adopted the Subscription Agreement and its Hong Kong-seated HKIAC arbitration clause (and was estopped from denying it), the factual precursors of the WU Application are arbitrable under the Arbitration Agreement and FamilyMart, and there were no discretionary reasons to refuse relief; the PL Application was not restrained because it falls outside the Arbitration Agreement and the BVI court may have jurisdiction to appoint provisional liquidators.
1 Aug 2025

HYALROUTE COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2417
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT155/2024

On proper construction of Clause 43.1 governed by Hong Kong law, the court must assess whether Cayman winding-up proceedings would be capable of 'finally resolving' the dispute; that assessment requires reference to Cayman law on finality/estoppel. Cayman law (as informed by Sian Participation and Re BPGIC) indicates winding-up proceedings do not finally determine the petition debt or create conclusive estoppel over substantive rights. Therefore the Defendant's presentation of Cayman winding-up proceedings would not breach Clause 43.1, the Plaintiff failed to show the high probability of succ…
17 Jul 2025

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD v. ZHENG HAO JIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3033
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP792/2024

The court refused to determine the allegation of dishonest breach of fiduciary duty summarily because the relevant test is subjective honesty, the Subject Defendants had filed affirmations giving evidence of their state of mind and reliance on legal advice (including parts of the 9 April memorandum), material issues of fact and credibility required oral evidence and cross‑examination, and the seriousness of the allegations and authorities caution against summary disposal; accordingly §2 of the OS was not dismissed and directions for a further hearing including oral evidence were ordered.