Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parallel proceedings

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2025

TO SHING CHAU v. HUNG WAI BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 480
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC491/2023

Leave granted for applicant to accept the EC sanctioned payment out of time but applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances or injustice to displace the normal costs rule; respondents are entitled to costs protection of their EC sanctioned payment made on 30 August 2023, therefore respondents pay applicant's costs up to and including 27 September 2023 and applicant must pay respondents' costs after 27 September 2023; indemnity costs refused.
14 Feb 2025

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO (HK) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 710
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1883/2024

The court granted the anti-suit injunction because the applicants had a legitimate interest (CCCI undertook to be bound by the Hong Kong proceedings), Hong Kong was the natural forum with deeper connections to the dispute, CCCDHK's commencement of Beijing proceedings carved out a single issue from long‑running multi‑party Hong Kong litigation and relied on a document only recently produced such that the foreign proceedings were vexatious, oppressive and unconscionable; accordingly, with due regard to comity, an ASI was required to protect the integrity of the Hong Kong proceedings.
7 Jan 2020

SUEN KWAI KAM v. CENTRAL CHINA DRAGON SELECT GROWTH FUND

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 69
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1264/2019

At the interlocutory stage the court will not determine complex illegality issues on summary application; an anti-suit injunction requires a convincing prima facie case of the contractual right to the nominated forum or independent unconscionable conduct amounting to vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings, assessed with caution and regard to comity.
31 Oct 2019

CHEN HONGQING v. LIU YIU KEUNG STEPHEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2720
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1699/2019

Applying the balance of fairness test the court provisionally found the plaintiff's conduct amounted to an abuse or risked multiplicity of proceedings (parallel cases with the same cause of action against different defendants) and that necessary parties had not been joined; on that basis the balance of fairness was against granting interim interim relief and the relief was refused.
8 Mar 2019

天津市裕豐隆資產管理有限公司 v. HO KIN WA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2405/2014

On the facts the court held that D1 had not waived the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court; the jurisdiction clauses in the Indemnity and Supplemental Indemnity Agreements are to be construed in accordance with Mainland law and, properly interpreted, point to the Mainland court as the forum for disputes, such that Hong Kong proceedings should give way to the PRC proceedings (and the application to set aside the default judgment is justified on that basis).
25 Feb 2019

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 542
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2018

Short delay was excusable because it stemmed from an erroneous belief that the order was final, and the intended appeal raised arguable points of law on the treatment of parallel proceedings in forum non conveniens/stay applications such that it had reasonable prospects of success; consequently leave to appeal was granted.
13 Dec 2017

LIQUIDATION COMMITTEE OF GUANGXI NON-FERROUS METALS RECYCLING CO LTD v. CNA METALS (ASIA) LTD

Citation

LIQUIDATION COMMITTEE OF GUANGXI NON-FERROUS METALS RECYCLING CO LTD v. CNA METALS (ASIA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA519/2017

The court accepted that mainland appellate judgments are final and conclusive for present purposes but found that the defendant s pleaded set-off raised a bona fide triable issue (including evidence that Top Lucky may have acted as plaintiff s agent and the mainland court s rejection was under appeal), so summary judgment was not appropriate; leave to defend was granted and the plaintiff s summary judgment application refused without prejudice to renewal after the mainland appeal concludes.
4 Jul 2017

JAMES CHOR CHEUNG WONG AND ANOTHER v. HARK CHUNG WONG

Citation

JAMES CHOR CHEUNG WONG AND ANOTHER v. HARK CHUNG WONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA469/2013

Queensland, Australia is the clearly more appropriate forum because the dispute concerns legal and beneficial title to land located in Queensland, the events and performance relate to Queensland, parallel nearly identical proceedings are pending there, and practical considerations (witnesses, evidence, enforcement) make trial in Hong Kong inappropriate; accordingly the Hong Kong proceedings are to be stayed under Order 12 r.8, but not struck out or declared devoid of any jurisdiction given uncertainties about parties' residence and forum clause.
12 May 2017

WERNER BOSSARD v. URS HESS

Citation

WERNER BOSSARD v. URS HESS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2721/2016

Switzerland is the proper and appropriate forum for resolving the partnership dispute because the centre of gravity of the business and the key matters in dispute (notably the 2015 EPL and entitlement on dissolution) lie in Switzerland, a Swiss action was already on foot when the Hong Kong writ issued, and the plaintiff failed to show any real procedural disadvantage from litigating in Switzerland; accordingly the Hong Kong action should be stayed to avoid parallel proceedings.
8 Jan 2015

CHINACHEM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. CENTURY VENTURE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

CHINACHEM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. CENTURY VENTURE HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA410/2013

The court dismissed the defendant's summons to stay. The NEJC in Clause 15 gave Hong Kong a strong prima facie claim as the appropriate forum; defendant failed to discharge the heavy burden to show strong, exceptional or overwhelming reasons to unseat Hong Kong, and the SPC's 2nd Stay Judgment did not estop this court from determining whether the Hong Kong action should proceed.