Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 11

Legal area

Court

19 Feb 2021

EMPEROR PRESTIGE CREDIT LTD v. KING PAK FU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1008/2019

The letter‑box insertion did not validly effect service because the defendant was outside Hong Kong when the writ was inserted and subsequent knowledge did not cure that defect; the plaintiff failed to show that ordinary service in Hong Kong was impracticable and had not properly sought or exhausted routes for service out under Order 11 before seeking substituted service under Order 65 r 4, therefore the substituted service order was wrongly obtained and must be set aside; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the Master's order setting aside service was upheld.
20 Nov 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2016

The court dismissed the Leave Challenge as lacking merit; however it granted leave to appeal on limited grounds (grounds (2) and (3) of the Jurisdiction Challenge) because the discrete point of law—whether Order 11 must be invoked for service where the defendant has submitted to jurisdiction—merits determination by the Court of Appeal. The application for a stay was refused because the grounds lacked sufficient prospect, a stay would prejudice SAIFs, and contempt proceedings should proceed without undue delay; costs were apportioned with specified orders.
10 Nov 2017

CHINA BAOLI TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as REX GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LTD) v. ORIENT EQUAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA BAOLI TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as REX GLOBAL ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS LTD) v. ORIENT EQUAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1399/2016

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because SVK failed to demonstrate any error of law or a reasonable prospect of success; the judge's exercise of discretion on service out and injunctions fell within the proper ambit of case management and forum discretion and could not be successfully challenged on the grounds advanced by SVK, including the separability argument and the claim that no serious issue to be tried existed.
17 Jun 2015

LEHMANBROWN LTD v. UNION TRADE HOLDINGS INC AND OTHERS

Citation

LEHMANBROWN LTD v. UNION TRADE HOLDINGS INC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP977/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: many grounds were new and not raised at the substantive hearing and therefore would not be entertained on a renewed application; service in Hong Kong was valid as to the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants and service via solicitors pursuant to an agreement was effective as to the 3rd defendant, and the challenge to jurisdiction under Order 12 Rule 8 was accordingly without merit.
28 Nov 2013

TOP POINT LTD v. K&L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

Citation

TOP POINT LTD v. K&L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1088/2011

The appeal was dismissed because the December 18, 2012 service, though irregular by omission of the 28‑day acknowledgement period, was effective and cured the earlier ineffective November service; the applicants demonstrated no substantive prejudice and were pursuing technical objections as delaying tactics, justifying affirmance of the Master’s dismissal and an award of indemnity costs.
29 Mar 2012

WINLAND ENTERPRISES GROUP INC. v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER

Citation

WINLAND ENTERPRISES GROUP INC. v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2011

The Court dismissed the appeal: Winland could not rely on an unpleaded fraud/concealment case at the Order 12 r.8 review or on appeal to justify leave to serve out; the fresh PRC judgment evidence was irrelevant to the pleaded case; on the pleaded case there was no arguable basis to lift Acro Pharm's corporate veil and no serious issue to be tried against WEX.
13 Aug 2008

SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUNCO PROPERTY HOLDINGS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNCO CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2007

The court dismissed the 3rd defendant's application to set aside the writ because the plaintiffs had provided sufficient material to justify service out of jurisdiction under Order 11, the affidavit statements were not shown to be false or misleading in a way that would invalidate service, and the primary purpose of Order 11 — giving notice to the defendant — was achieved.
11 Jul 1991

MATTEL, INC. v. TONKA CORPORATION

Citation

MATTEL, INC. v. TONKA CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1918/1991

The ex parte order of 14 March 1991 is discharged because the ex parte application contained a material mistaken statement about transhipment in Hong Kong (misleading evidence), warranting discharge in the exercise of the court's discretion; on the merits the plaintiff established a good arguable case only that the defendant, acting through its HK subsidiary TPK, imported goods into Hong Kong after 1 March 1991 (import includes deliberate transit), but failed to establish a good arguable case for imports prior to 1 March 1991, for procurement liability lacking pleaded/established knowledge of…