Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusive jurisdiction clauses

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2022

NUOXI CAPITAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1514
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP78/2022

Leave to appeal and the application to adduce post‑hearing letters were dismissed. The court held the judge did not err in refusing to stay the Hong Kong Actions: exclusive jurisdiction clauses were enforceable absent strong reasons; submission of claims in the PRC reorganisation did not bar pursuit of contractual remedies in Hong Kong; the Reply Letter did not materially affect the judge’s discretionary assessment; and the Administrator required leave to appeal under Order 59 r21(1)(a).
11 Oct 2022

KUNZHI LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1514
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP81/2022

The Court refused leave to appeal and declined to admit the post-hearing Reply Letter because the judge had properly exercised his discretion: he did not err in enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clauses absent strong reasons, correctly held that submission of claims in PRC insolvency does not bar pursuing contractual claims in Hong Kong, and correctly concluded the Administrator had no substantive right to an automatic stay such as would render HCMP 1831 appealable as of right; accordingly the judge’s refusal to stay the Actions was not shown to have reasonable prospects of success.
4 Mar 2022

FOUNDER INFORMATION (HONG KONG) LTD v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA798/2021

The recognition order did not determine substantive rights and the stay applications are interlocutory; consequently leave to appeal is required and was refused because the applicants did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice; the short delay in filing was excused and extension granted but it did not change the outcome on leave.
4 Mar 2022

HONGKONG JHC CO., LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1418/2021

Extension of time for filing the leave applications was granted as the short delay was excusable; HCMP 1831 recognition order and the refusals to stay in the writ Actions are interlocutory in character requiring leave to appeal; the Administrators failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or any other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeals; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs were ordered against the Administrators/defendant.
4 Mar 2022

RE ZHENG ZHIBIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1831/2021

The judge granted a short extension for the late filing but held the recognition order and stay applications to be interlocutory in character (not final) so leave was required; applying s14AA(4) the court found the proposed appeals lacked a reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear them, and accordingly refused leave to appeal and ordered costs against the applicants/defendant.
4 Mar 2022

KUNZHI LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1442/2021

The applications for leave to appeal were dismissed because the recognition/stay decisions were interlocutory and not appealable as of right, the short delay in filing was excused, and the Applicants did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success nor any other interest of justice warranting an appeal; accordingly leave was refused and costs ordered against the Applicants/Defendant.
17 Dec 2021

HONGKONG JHC CO., LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1418/2021

The court dismissed the Administrator’s/applicants’ applications for a stay because filing proofs in the Mainland insolvency did not by itself displace the parties’ clear contractual choice of Hong Kong as exclusive forum for disputes governed by English law; Article 21 EBL and the Mainland reorganisation did not demonstrate the necessary strong reasons to override the jurisdiction clause; recognition and assistance to the Beijing reorganisation were granted but with tailored directions and limits (including preservation of the plaintiffs’ rights to proceed in Hong Kong).
17 Dec 2021

RE ZHENG ZHIBIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1831/2021

The court refused to stay the Hong Kong actions. It held that filing proofs in the Beijing reorganisation does not, by itself, extinguish the plaintiffs’ contractual right to have disputes decided in the agreed Hong Kong forum and the Administrator did not show sufficiently strong or exceptional reasons to displace the exclusive jurisdiction clause. The court recognised the Beijing reorganisation and granted assistance but declined the stay, instead providing tailored directions for cooperation between the courts and parties.
17 Dec 2021

NUOXI CAPITAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA778/2021

The court refused to order a stay of the Hong Kong actions and dismissed the Administrator’s stay applications because contractual exclusive jurisdiction and English governing law prevail absent compelling reasons; filing proofs in the Beijing reorganisation does not automatically preclude pursuing adjudication in Hong Kong; recognition and assistance to the Beijing reorganisation was granted, but without depriving the Plaintiffs of their contractual right to litigate in Hong Kong; practical directions were given to facilitate cooperation with the Beijing Court.
17 Dec 2021

KUNZHI LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1442/2021

The Court refused the Administrator’s application for a stay of the Hong Kong actions because the Administrator and Company failed to demonstrate sufficiently strong reasons to displace the parties’ contractual choice of Hong Kong jurisdiction; however the Court granted recognition and assistance to the Mainland reorganisation, imposed specified directions for cooperation and limited the stay so that it does not bar the four HCA actions from proceeding in Hong Kong, and ordered costs in favour of the Plaintiffs.