Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Finality of foreign judgments

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

TSOI CHUNG TAT PRINCE v. WEI ZHONGXIA

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1843/2021

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to show the PRC judgments were plainly and obviously final and conclusive because no PRC expert evidence was adduced and there was no evidence to show the likelihood of retrial under the PRC trial supervision system; the PRC judgments dealt with the nature of the RMB5,000,000 and did not decide the RMB15,000,000 claim here so issues were not identical; the Defendant's inconsistent‑cases ground was raised late and unfair; accordingly there was no abuse of process and the striking out was improper.
28 Oct 2025

KING BUN LTD AND OTHERS v. LAU MAN SANG, JAMES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1711/2023

CPR r.42.9 does not render the BVI Costs Orders non-final because it only permits variation of time or mode of compliance rather than reopening merits; plaintiffs' BVI expert evidence, unchallenged by contrary BVI law evidence, established finality; potential future BVI orders are speculative and any set-off would be for the BVI court to determine; accordingly the appeal disclosed no arguable defence and was dismissed.
2 Sept 2024

三河宏祥混凝土有限公司 v. ZHANG YONGTIE (張永鐵) (also known as 張永鉄)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2330
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA873/2022

Given Plaintiff’s onus to establish finality and the Defendant’s pleaded denial (including a retrial application albeit withdrawn) and the absence of admissions on the factual payment issue, the court granted leave to adduce expert evidence on both whether the Judgments are final and on the sequence for applying the 2021 partial payment; the Master’s refusal was set aside and the court allowed each party to appoint its own expert rather than a single joint expert.
14 Dec 2023

TANG GANG AND OTHERS v. WONG SAI CHUNG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1338
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV431/2022

The Court of Appeal held the judge below erred in treating the retrial of alleged fraud as discretionary and in misapplying WFM Motors; under Jet Holdings the allegation of fraud must be re-examined and the Defendant had adduced sufficient, believable particulars (inconsistencies in plaintiff evidence and forensic finding of a forged signature on the Power of Attorney) to establish a triable issue of fraud; accordingly summary judgment was inappropriate, the judgment below and costs order were set aside, and the summary judgment application was dismissed with costs ordered at 50% to the Defen…
7 Apr 2022

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP83/2020

The Court held the BHPC Judgment could not be registered under the MJREO because the Guarantee itself did not contain or expressly specify a written choice of Mainland court agreement within the meaning of the Ordinance; however the BHPC Judgment is sufficiently final and conclusive for common law enforcement purposes, there was a real risk of dissipation of the defendant's assets, and there was no material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage, so the Mareva injunction was continued interlocutorily until judgment in an action on the BHPC Judgment or further order.
27 Sept 2019

JIANG XI AN FA DA WINE CO. LTD v. ZHAN KING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2411
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2017

The court held that the PRC proceedings were capable of giving rise to a judgment enforceable in Hong Kong for the purposes of s21M notwithstanding the common law bar on non‑monetary judgments and the PRC trial supervision procedure, that the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience and justice favored preservation of the 68,000,000 Subject Shares; accordingly a proprietary injunction under s21M was granted and s21M(4) did not make granting unjust or inconvenient on the facts.
29 Apr 2016

BANK OF CHINA LTD v. YANG FAN

Citation

BANK OF CHINA LTD v. YANG FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1797/2015

The court held that although there was material non-disclosure to the ex parte judge, the non-disclosure was trivial and excusable and did not affect the merits; the Plaintiff had established a good arguable case that the PRC proceedings would yield a judgment likely final and conclusive for enforcement, the contractual clauses operated as exclusive Mainland jurisdiction clauses, the Plaintiff retained locus to sue by virtue of the assignments and authorisations, and a real risk of dissipation existed; accordingly the existing injunction was discharged for technical non-disclosure but a new i…
5 Feb 2001

TAN TAY CUAN v. NG CHI HUNG

Citation

TAN TAY CUAN v. NG CHI HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5477/2000

Summary judgment was inappropriate because the PRC judgment was arguably not final and conclusive given the express retrial/supervision mechanisms in PRC law and the Supreme People’s Court's direction to the lower court to consider a retrial application; therefore the appeal was allowed and unconditional leave to defend granted.