Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay for arbitration

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2024

RE MEGA GOLD HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW273/2023

The court exercised its discretion to decline to exercise its winding‑up and bankruptcy jurisdiction and stayed both petitions pending arbitration because the disputes fall within the contracts' arbitration clauses, the Company and Debtor demonstrated a genuine intention to arbitrate and presented non‑frivolous defences (waiver/estoppel and insufficient legally available funds), and there were no countervailing factors such as risk to the creditor community to justify overriding the parties' agreed dispute resolution mechanism.
6 Jun 2024

楊佩玲 v. SUPER BEST INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 520
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP375/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal found no reasonable prospect of success in the proposed grounds: the court below correctly applied the principle that where a stay for arbitration is or is likely to be granted the Defence Requirement need not be met; the defendant established a prima facie arbitration agreement and the referral under the Arbitration Ordinance produced a non‑appealable stay; therefore the judge's decision to set aside the default judgment and stay proceedings pending arbitration was correct.
3 Nov 2023

TRIBEST INVESTMENTS LTD v. HOREX LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1518
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2021/2022

There is a prima facie or plainly arguable arbitration agreement binding the plaintiff under Clause 15 of the DMC; the dispute between plaintiff and 2nd defendant falls within the ambit of Clause 15; Clause 15 is not shown to be null, inoperative or incapable of being performed; the 2nd defendant did not submit to the court's jurisdiction; accordingly the court must stay proceedings as to the 2nd defendant and refer the matter to arbitration and award costs to the 2nd defendant on an indemnity basis subject to order nisi and summary assessment directions.
28 Apr 2023

FALCON INSURANCE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD v. BING LEE CRANE-LORRY TRANSPORTATION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1129
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1063/2022

The court granted a stay because all four statutory questions were satisfied: the policy contained a valid arbitration agreement; the arbitration clause was not inoperative or incapable of performance despite s.10(3) relief being reserved to the court; there was a real dispute between Falcon and Bing Lee about the policy's validity and the Deemed Waiver; and the dispute fell within the wide ambit of the Arbitration Clause. Accordingly the matters between Falcon and Bing Lee were ordered to arbitration and other related claims stayed pending its outcome.
1 Apr 2022

RE HONGKONG BAI YUAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CO., LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW219/2021

The court held there was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the EUR955,000 Debt: the payment condition was met on 15 January 2021, no contractual right to withhold payment was identified, the discoloration insurance settlement and alleged cross-claims did not establish a defence to the Debt, and therefore the statutory demand was valid; Company was ordered to pay within 14 days or petitioner may restore the petition leading to a usual winding order.
19 Jul 2019

TRUEARNS CO LTD v. WEALTHY FOUNTAIN HOLDINGS INC

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1560/2018

The court found it arguable that the Letter of Surety incorporated the arbitration clause in the Transfer Agreement such that there was a prima facie arbitration agreement; on that basis the court was obliged to stay the action under the Arbitration Ordinance and set aside the default judgment, leaving merits to an arbitral tribunal.
11 Apr 2019

RE SIT KWONG LAM

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6051/2018

Petition allowed and bankruptcy order made because the statutory demand was not set aside, there was no valid arbitration clause in the guarantor documents capable of preventing the petition (and any such clause would be unenforceable if it fettered statutory insolvency rights), the Debtor by signing the Settlement Agreement and executing the PG Addendum consented to the extension and remained liable as guarantor, and the Debtor’s evidence of imminent refinancing was speculative and insufficient to show a reasonable prospect of repayment within a reasonable time.
28 Jun 2018

CONCENTRIC CONSTRUCTION LTD v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT27/2017

Although certain time entries (items C and D) were excessive, the substantial volume of documents justified considerable preparatory time; therefore a modest reduction was appropriate and the Defendant's costs were summarily assessed at $275,000 in favour of the Defendant.
18 Mar 2016

WING BO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DISCREET LTD

Citation

WING BO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. DISCREET LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA146/2015

Section 20(8) of the Arbitration Ordinance is a valid legislative choice to preclude appeals from a CFI decision referring parties to arbitration; the provision is constitutional under Basic Law art 82 because it pursues legitimate aims (speed, finality, cost reduction and party autonomy), is rationally connected to those aims and is within the legislature's margin of appreciation; although Master Leong lacked jurisdiction to hear the initial summons, the CFI reheard the matter de novo and was properly constituted to make the referral; accordingly the Leave Summons for permission to appeal th…
31 Oct 2014

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD - [ZION] v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD

Citation

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD - [ZION] v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP436/2013

Leave to commence committal proceedings was refused because the plaintiff unreasonably delayed bringing the application causing prejudice, there was insufficient established evidence that sworn statements were knowingly false (issues remained to be tried at trial), an arbitration and awards had been conducted subsequently making contempt for non‑referral futile, and the public interest did not justify granting leave.