Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Submission to jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2024

WU KEXUAN v. JIANG JINZHI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 215
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP279/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge had lawfully and reasonably exercised his discretion after considering relevant factors (nature of the tort claim falling outside the separation agreement, defendant's prior participation in court proceedings, and procedural history); there was no clear error of law or fact nor an arguable prospect of success such that an appeal should be permitted.
22 Nov 2022

SHANGHAI GOPHER ASSET MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. CHINA BASE GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1724
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP31/2022

Leave to appeal refused because the Judge was entitled to prefer the defendants' expert construction of Article 34 CPL and to find clause 11.2 was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, correctly applied the Euromark/Deltatre approach (as affirmed in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam) that absence of a meritorious defence does not ordinarily defeat such a clause, correctly concluded the defendants had not submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction, and properly exercised discretion in varying costs to indemnity on the facts; the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success.
28 Oct 2021

SHANGHAI GOPHER ASSET MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. CHINA BASE GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3216
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1300/2019

The court accepted the defendants' PRC expert evidence that Article 34 treats the place of signing as a statutorily connected forum and that the EPA's clause conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the People’s Court of Pudong New District, Shanghai; the court held the stay should be granted because the exclusivity was valid, there were not sufficiently strong reasons to displace the parties' bargain (lack of a credible defence alone is not sufficient), and the defendants had not unequivocally submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction because their inspection and consolidation steps were procedural and…
28 Oct 2021

SHANGHAI GOPHER ASSET MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. CHINA BASE GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3216
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1299/2019

The court accepted the defendants’ PRC expert interpretation that Article 34 CPL treats the place of signing as a valid statutory basis for jurisdiction and that clause 11.2 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the People’s Court of Pudong New District, Shanghai; the Euromark line requires truly exceptional or unforeseeable circumstances to displace an exclusive choice of court and the plaintiff’s complaints about the credibility of the defence did not meet that threshold; the defendants’ procedural steps were taken with reservations and did not constitute unequivocal submission to Hong Kong j…
22 Oct 2021

TO also known as TT v. KO

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1545
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV541/2020

The Court held that a party may challenge statutory jurisdiction even after pronouncement of a decree nisi; res judicata and submission to jurisdiction principles do not bar reopening a statutory jurisdictional question; on the evidence neither spouse was habitually resident in Hong Kong for the requisite three years, so the Hong Kong courts lacked jurisdiction and the decree nisi was properly rescinded; the wife's appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the husband.
5 Aug 2021

SUCCESS HOUSE INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS v. LIAO CHEN TOH

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1148
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV592/2020

The Court of Appeal held that LCT had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts by commencing proceedings in Hong Kong and that contempt/committal proceedings seeking to enforce orders made in those proceedings are incidental to the original action; accordingly service out under Order 11 was not required and the Judge was entitled to order substituted service and dispense with personal service. The appeal was dismissed with costs and a certificate for two counsel was granted.
5 Aug 2021

LIAO CHEN TOH v. LOYAL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1148
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV591/2020

Where a foreign litigant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court by commencing proceedings in Hong Kong, the court already has jurisdiction over matters incidental to that action, including committal applications for contempt of court orders; therefore leave under Order 11 r.1 to serve out is not required for contempt proceedings incidental to the original proceedings and substituted or dispensed service can be ordered where appropriate.
23 Apr 2021

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. ANDvANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

Citation

[2021] HKCA 574
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV625/2020

The Court refused leave to appeal and refused stays because the plaintiff's grounds were not reasonably arguable, Judge Field's findings that the Disclosure Order had not been complied with were entitled to deference, and the discretionary orders for substituted service/dispensing with personal service were properly exercised and not plainly wrong.
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.
22 Jan 2020

CHAN HON, the administrator of the estate of POON LAI MING, deceased v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 255
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI32/2016

The Service Out Order was set aside for material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; alternatively the 2nd and 3rd defendants had submitted to the court's jurisdiction at the Checklist Review hearing and thereby waived earlier irregularities; leave to appeal was granted because the issue of case management as relevant to submission to jurisdiction is novel and has a reasonable prospect of success; the application to vary the costs order nisi was refused and the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs to be taxed with certificate…