Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Applicable law

  • 30 Apr 2021

    H v. L

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 1203
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT50/2020

    The Court dismissed the respondent's summons to set aside the Enforcement Orders because the Tribunal lawfully applied PRC law, considered and rejected the respondent's defences, the respondent had waived or failed to raise PRC‑law illegality before the Tribunal (and the supervisory court had refused to set aside the awards), alleged errors of fact or law and complaints about reasons do not amount to public policy grounds to refuse enforcement under section 95, and therefore enforcement is not contrary to Hong Kong public policy; costs awarded to applicant on an indemnity basis.

  • 5 Feb 2008

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

    Citation
    FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4414/2001

    Applying the three-stage choice-of-law approach, the court characterised the dispute as rights and obligations under the sale contracts (sale of shares), adopted lex loci actus and identified Hong Kong as the proper law (closest and most real connection). Under Hong Kong law the First Laser Agreement was valid; the Plaintiff paid the full consideration; the 1st Defendant breached by selling FCL to JDS; the 1st Defendant held 51% beneficial interest on constructive trust for the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant (conduit) is a constructive trustee of 51% of proceeds. The Plaintiff is entitled to…

  • 12 Dec 2002

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

    Citation
    FIRST LASER LTD. v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4414/2001

    Both interlocutory applications were dismissed: the Defendants failed to show Fujian was a clearly more appropriate forum under the Spiliada test so the stay application failed; the Plaintiff failed to establish that PRC proceedings were commenced or continued in bad faith or were oppressive so an anti-suit injunction was unjustified — the balance of convenience, uncertainty as to applicable law on different issues, comity and the progress of PRC proceedings required refusal of both remedies.