Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Registration of foreign judgments

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2019

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD (QUANZHOU BRANCH) v. LI KWAI CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2017

Defendants failed to discharge the burden under s18(1)(f) to prove they were not summoned or were not given sufficient time; service by the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court to the contractually agreed address satisfied Mainland law (including Article 12 of the SPC Service Provisions) and was upheld by the Fujian Higher People's Court and the People's Procuratorate, therefore the registration order stands and the setting aside summons is dismissed.
30 May 2019

黃书建 v. 代威

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1386
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1556/2017

Applying the conflict of laws principle the contract (and Clause 6) is governed by Mainland law; on the evidence and applying Mainland contractual construction principles the court preferred the applicant's expert and found Clause 6 to be exclusive in substance and effect within the meaning of s3(2); accordingly the registration satisfied s5(2)(b) and the respondent's application to set aside the registration was dismissed.
25 May 2009

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v. GAO HUI AND OTHERS

Citation

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v. GAO HUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCZZ27/2009

The Ordinance permits registration only of final and conclusive foreign judgments that require payment of a sum of money; the New Zealand Mareva-type freezing orders were interlocutory asset-preservation orders and not final monetary judgments, therefore their registration under the Ordinance was invalid and the Hong Kong orders based on that registration were discharged.
4 Feb 1999

BIARD LABORATOIRES SA v. ROSUMI LTD.

Citation

BIARD LABORATOIRES SA v. ROSUMI LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP252/1997

The ordonnance de référé in this case finally and conclusively decided under French law that the defendant could not lawfully stop payment on the cheques (the obligation was not seriously disputable), the Commercial Court intended the sums to be paid, the defendant submitted to French jurisdiction by contesting the order and appealing, and enforcement is not contrary to Hong Kong public policy; therefore the registration of the French judgment was properly maintained.
16 Jul 1998

GUIDO KARL WENK v. ALAN LEE GOLDSTEIN

Citation

GUIDO KARL WENK v. ALAN LEE GOLDSTEIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3908/1997

Order 71 r.5(4) must be read according to its plain meaning: 'while it remains competent for any party to apply' refers to the competence of the applying party and is judged by the statutory time limit; accordingly the rule provides a single code curtailing the Court’s general power to extend time in registration proceedings under Ord.3 r.5 or inherent jurisdiction, and the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the extension sought for the Registrar’s Certificate; appeal dismissed.
25 Jan 1978

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP155/1977

On the evidence the court found that key transfers concerning the 15,000,000 shares in Fermay and specified blocks in Asiatic and Triumphant were shams or remained subject to restrictions so beneficial ownership remained with Choo Kim San; accordingly charging orders nisi as to those shares were made absolute. Conversely, as to the 8,000,000 block (including 7,631,000 registered in IPC) the court concluded beneficial ownership had passed to Rocky/Coes' interests through bona fide agreements and payments and the charging orders nisi as to those IPC shares were discharged; hearsay evidence comp…
25 Jan 1978

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2459/1976

On the evidence the court found key transactions concerning shares registered in the names of Asiatic, Triumphant and Fermay were shams so that beneficial ownership remained in C.K. San and charging orders in respect of those shares were made absolute; by contrast the court found the parcel comprising approximately 8 million shares sold to Rocky/Coef was, on balance, purchased bona fide for value so beneficial interest passed to Rocky/Coef and charging orders in respect of IPC shares were discharged; hearsay evidence presented under the statutory hearsay rules was admissible and the plaintiff…

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD (QUANZHOU BRANCH) v. LI KWAI CHUN AND OTHERS

黃书建 v. 代威

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v. GAO HUI AND OTHERS

BIARD LABORATOIRES SA v. ROSUMI LTD.

GUIDO KARL WENK v. ALAN LEE GOLDSTEIN

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS

LEE ING CHEE v. CHOO KIM SAN AND OTHERS