Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public policy defence to enforcement

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2023

BB v. KO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2661
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2020

Extension of time was refused because KO exhibited substantial unexplained delay (more than two years), his stated reasons (focusing on foreign proceedings, change of lawyers, medical issues) were not credible or sufficient, KO failed to disclose necessary facts to substantiate a public policy defence (notably any Hong Kong litigation), the tribunal had considered and rejected KO's unconscionability complaints, and there was no prima facie basis to refuse enforcement on Hong Kong public policy grounds; accordingly the summons to set aside was dismissed and costs awarded to BB.
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.
23 Feb 2017

U v. A AND OTHERS

Citation

U v. A AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT34/2016

The court held the respondents were afforded a fair hearing despite the arbitrator declining to admit the Fuzhou judgment; the tribunal's determination that the PAC and addenda were effective and that the claim to appoint the chairman fell within the scope of the reference was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction and not reviewable on enforcement; enforcement would not offend Hong Kong public policy and it would not be just to refuse enforcement on grounds based on PRC law or forum non conveniens; material non-disclosure and payment arguments did not vitiate the ex parte leave to enforce.
24 Dec 2014

廣東長虹電子有限公司 v. INSPUR ELECTRONICS (HK) LTD

Citation

廣東長虹電子有限公司 v. INSPUR ELECTRONICS (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT43/2013

IEL failed to prove the arbitration agreement or underlying contracts were invalid; the conduct and documentary evidence (use of IEL's name, receipt of US$720,000 into IEL's bank account, issuance of packing lists and the Termination Agreement acknowledging the Contracts) established consent/adoption so the arbitration clause was valid and a certified copy of clause 16 of Contract No 4300020410 satisfied s94; accordingly enforcement was not contrary to public policy and the application to set aside was dismissed.
15 Sept 2014

HONG KONG GOLDEN SOURCE LTD v. NEW ELEGANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG GOLDEN SOURCE LTD v. NEW ELEGANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT14/2014

The court dismissed the application to set aside the Enforcement Order because the allegations against HKGSL were extraneous to the arbitral process and did not impugn the substance or correctness of the award, the appropriate forum to determine beneficial ownership is the separate High Court Action, and even if public policy grounds could be made out the court would not exercise its discretion to refuse enforcement on these facts.
20 Sept 2006

CAPITAL CENTURY CO LTD v. EASEWIN PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

CAPITAL CENTURY CO LTD v. EASEWIN PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW100/2006

On uncontested expert PRC law evidence accepted by the court, the respondent's partial capital contribution did not create any equitable interest in the JV company's shareholding; therefore the respondent had no genuine cross claim sufficient to defeat the winding-up petition. Further, the non-disclosure complained of did not establish fraud or public policy grounds strong enough to refuse enforcement of the CIETAC award. Consequently the petition was allowed and the winding-up order made, and the respondent's application to stay or dismiss was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

BB v. KO

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

U v. A AND OTHERS

廣東長虹電子有限公司 v. INSPUR ELECTRONICS (HK) LTD

HONG KONG GOLDEN SOURCE LTD v. NEW ELEGANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

CAPITAL CENTURY CO LTD v. EASEWIN PROPERTIES LTD