Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitration clause construction

Legal area

Court

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.
21 Jun 2023

SESDERMA, S.L. v. SEEKY INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1619
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1815/2021

The 2018 Distributorship Agreement contains a valid and applicable arbitration clause that, as a matter of construction and in light of the Court's prior decision that the 2018 Agreement superseded the 2017 Agreement, covers the plaintiff's trademark and related tort claims; issue estoppel bars the plaintiff from re‑asserting the continued effect of the 2017 jurisdiction clause; accordingly a mandatory stay under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance was required and granted.
24 May 2022

BEST FIELD INC v. TRIANGULAR FORCE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA913/2021

The arbitration clause in the Written Agreement is wide enough to cover disputes arising from the later oral agreement concerning monetisation of the shares; the plaintiff's pre-action letters and defendant's silence did not amount to clear and unequivocal waiver or election to litigate; therefore the action should be stayed and the dispute referred to arbitration under s20 Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609).
8 Apr 2022

SILVER KING CHINA LTD v. HUY YUN SHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 301
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3960/2021

Clause 16 of the DMC is prima facie an arbitration agreement covering the disputes between the plaintiff and all defendants including the management company as agent of the incorporated owners; the requirements of s.20(1) AO are satisfied; Clause 16 is not incapable of being performed; public law/HKBORO arguments fail because HKBORO does not bind private parties; procedural irregularity was cured by amendment and in any event did not nullify the application; accordingly the court must refer the matters to arbitration and stay the proceedings and award indemnity costs to defendants.
29 Dec 2021

T v. B

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2021

Prematurity or non-compliance with contractual pre-arbitration conditions (including absence of a completion certificate under Clause 31) is a matter of admissibility not a true jurisdictional challenge; therefore the Arbitrator's Interim Award on prematurity was not reviewable under section 81/Article 34 and the Set Aside Application fails; accordingly the Court granted the Defendant's application to stay the writ action in favour of arbitration and dismissed the Plaintiff's set aside application; Clause 31 is not invalid as inherently contrary to public policy for producing a potential limi…
4 May 2021

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY PETROVICH ORLOV

Citation

[2021] HKCA 639
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP44/2020

Assuming, for present purposes, the defendant could renew his leave application, the Court held the defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie or plainly arguable case that the arbitration clause in the Framework Agreement covered the Loan Agreement or the Oral Agreement. Material factors—Loan Agreement executed after the Framework Agreement, different choice of law in the Loan Agreement, absence of an arbitration clause in the Loan Agreement, and the Loan Agreement addressing a past compensatory matter—objectively indicated the parties did not intend disputes under the Loan Agreement to b…
20 Jan 2021

T v. W

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA366/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because the Defendant demonstrated more than fanciful prospects of success on an arguable and important point of law—namely whether CA Pacific's presumption should continue or be displaced by a one-stop approach—and the construction of the arbitration clause raised issues with merits sufficient to justify a Court of Appeal hearing; accordingly leave was appropriate under the reasonable prospect test and the interests of justice.
18 Nov 2020

T v. W

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2918
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA366/2020

Applying Hong Kong authority in CA Pacific, the court held the cheque is a separate contract from the Loan Agreement and there is no clear plain manifestation in the arbitration clause to include claims under the Cheque; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the arbitration agreement covers the cheque claim, therefore the mandatory stay under section 20(1) was refused.
24 Aug 2020

CHEUNG SHING HONG LTD v. CHINA PING AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2269
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1485/2019

On proper construction clause 14 of the Policy is apt to cover both liability and quantum; accordingly the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement and the court must grant a stay of the High Court proceedings in favour of arbitration.
21 May 2020

MAGNUS LEONARD ROTH v. VITALY PETROVICH ORLOV

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1093/2017

The court refused leave to appeal because, construing the Arbitration Clause in the factual matrix, the separate Loan Agreement with a different choice of law and its subject matter meant the Arbitration Clause did not prima facie cover the plaintiff's claims; the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the summons for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.