Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Governing law

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2024

JOVIAL PARADISE LTD v. EVER HARMONY ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3500
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1937/2023

The court upheld the express Hong Kong jurisdiction clause in the Facility Agreement and Amended Facility Agreement, found no exceptional circumstances to displace that forum in favour of PRC courts, held the PRC Personal Guarantee to be a separate additional security that did not supersede the agreed jurisdiction, and concluded the default judgment was regularly entered because defendants failed to file a defence or show a manifestly arguable defence; both summonses were dismissed.
6 Nov 2024

JINGDONG E-COMMERCE (TRADE) HONG KONG CORPORATION LTD v. MAVIN ELECTRONS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1032/2023

Defendant established a prima facie case that the SPA arbitration clause (Clause 9.9) covers the present disputes so the court must stay proceedings in favour of arbitration; the 8/12/22 Agreement did not plainly and unequivocally waive the arbitration clause, the SPA clause is wide and the 8/12/22 Agreement expressly refers to the SPA and Supplemental Agreement, and questions about reliance on SPA clause 3.5 and set-off are appropriately for the tribunal to determine first.
20 Feb 2024

CHOI HON CHEUNG v. CHAN CHONG MAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 538
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1295/2022

Master found the Plaintiff had established a serious issue to be tried, a good arguable case under gateways (e), (d)(iii) and (p) based on receipts, WeChat messages and transfers through Hong Kong accounts, and that Hong Kong is clearly the appropriate forum; accordingly the Defendant’s application to set aside leave to serve out and to stay proceedings was dismissed.
8 Feb 2023

MINH DUC CONCRETE & CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG LEE YUAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ55/2021

Plaintiff proved the total loss of the cargo and, relying on invoice value as prima facie evidence of sound arrived value and Hong Kong law for quantification, is entitled to damages of US$1,057,314; interest at 1% above the US prime rate from 15 October 2021 to judgment and judgment rate thereafter; and costs summarily assessed at HK$675,330, payable forthwith.
4 Dec 2020

CHINA INTERNATIONAL FUND LTD v. WEST CHINA CEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1889/2019

Defendants failed to show that Maputo is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong because the alleged conspiratorial agreement and the defendants' decision-making largely occurred in Mainland China (PRC law likely governs the conspiracy), and there is a real risk that CIF would be deprived of a legitimate juridical advantage in Mozambique due to witness availability and potential political influence; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
27 May 2019

VASILIEVA ELENA NIKOLAEVNA, the Liquidator of Agricultural Productive Cooperative >>>, a Russian corporate (in liquidation) v. DRAGON SEAFOODS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1240/2017

Recorder dismissed the summons because clause 5 did not operate as an exclusive jurisdiction clause ousting Hong Kong jurisdiction and the defendant failed to establish any other available forum clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong; the Russian Commercial Court had already ruled the same claim could not be heard in Russian commercial courts, and the defendant failed to identify any alternative Russian forum.
20 Apr 2016

MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV157/2014

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's discretionary Stage I finding that Hong Kong is not shown to be an inappropriate forum and that Xiamen is not clearly or distinctly more appropriate: the dispute is primarily a factual contest about the existence and terms of an alleged shareholders agreement covering companies in multiple jurisdictions, Article 266 was not clearly engaged, and plaintiffs' right to sue a Hong Kong company in Hong Kong and available enforcement remedies against a Hong Kong company weighed decisively against a stay; accordingly the refusal to stay was not plainly wrong a…
19 Jul 2013

MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1972/2012

The 2nd Defendant failed to discharge the evidential burden under the Spiliada test to show Xiamen is clearly or distinctly more appropriate; the Shareholders Agreement has the closest and most real connection with Hong Kong law (which recognises beneficial ownership), and therefore the application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings in favour of Xiamen is dismissed.
14 Jun 2011

CIDO CAR CARRIER SERVICE LTD v. WOORI BANK (HONG KONG BRANCH)

Citation

CIDO CAR CARRIER SERVICE LTD v. WOORI BANK (HONG KONG BRANCH)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA874/2011

The South Korean tax authority's notice seeking to freeze and collect alleged tax debt was a foreign revenue claim and cannot be enforced in Hong Kong in the absence of treaty or reciprocity; the defendant bank was in breach of its contract with the plaintiff by seeking to comply with that foreign request, therefore the court granted the plaintiff's relief, dismissed the interpleader application and ordered costs to the plaintiff.
2 Mar 2011

DEFOND ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARTMINER WORLDWIDE INC. (formerly known as PARTMINER DIRECT INC.)

Citation

DEFOND ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD v. PARTMINER WORLDWIDE INC. (formerly known as PARTMINER DIRECT INC.)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA760/2010

The court found on an objective reading of the email exchanges that the contract was concluded by Mr Vater's 16 May email accepting the plaintiff's purchase order terms (including 60-day credit and NC/NR). Because the contract was formed before the defendant's delivery note and invoice, the defendant's standard terms were not incorporated. Clause 14 of the plaintiff's terms (Hong Kong governing law) therefore applied and the court has jurisdiction; the application to set aside Master Ho's order was dismissed.