Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdictional submission

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2021

MELVIN WAXMAN AND AOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1972/2012

The application for a case management stay was refused because the degree of overlap between the Xiamen Proceedings and the Hong Kong action was insufficient to justify a stay: the Xiamen judgment addressed the effect of specific written documents whereas the Hong Kong claim pleads a partly oral shareholders' agreement not confined to those documents; plaintiffs' participation in the Xiamen Proceedings did not amount to submission sufficient to ground a stay; and discretionary factors (uncertain appeal timetable, age of the 1st plaintiff, delay in filing the stay summons and the fixed 12-day…
4 Jun 2020

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP208/2020

Because Zhou had previously submitted to the court's jurisdiction in related proceedings and was manifestly aware of the contempt application yet refused to accept service, the court held that permission to serve out was unnecessary and that, in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse/delay, personal service of the originating summons should be dispensed with and substituted service on his solicitors (MinterEllison) ordered in accordance with the draft order.
28 Apr 2017

SHENZHEN CTS INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DAJIANG INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

SHENZHEN CTS INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DAJIANG INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1927/2016

The stay was dismissed because the defendant by its conduct had submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction (having sought interlocutory relief including security and striking out), it failed to demonstrate any arguable defence such as would justify a stay, and Hong Kong is the natural forum with the most real and substantial connection (witnesses, evidence, detained cargo); clause 19 did not oust Hong Kong jurisdiction and PRC proceedings did not render the GZ Court clearly more appropriate.
28 Oct 1987

ANGLO-EASTERN (1985) LTD AND ANOTHER v. KARL KNUTZ AND OTHERS

Citation

ANGLO-EASTERN (1985) LTD AND ANOTHER v. KARL KNUTZ AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV100/1987

The Court held the derivative action did not fail in limine: the 'fraud on a minority' exception to Foss v. Harbottle extends to equitable fraud/abuse of power beyond strict common law fraud; the plaintiffs had a good arguable case on the material before the court and demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets so as to justify continuation of the Mareva/tracing injunction; hence the appeals were dismissed and the interlocutory injunctions continued in force.

Hong Kong Case Law

MELVIN WAXMAN AND AOTHER v. LI FEI YU AND ANOTHER

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

SHENZHEN CTS INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. DAJIANG INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO LTD

ANGLO-EASTERN (1985) LTD AND ANOTHER v. KARL KNUTZ AND OTHERS