Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of foreign service

Legal area

Court

14 May 2018

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES CO LTD v. ADS SECURITIES LLC

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1044
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA473/2017

The court held that Haitong established a good arguable case that the agreement was concluded in Hong Kong and that Hong Kong law governed by implication (meeting O.11 r.1(1)(d)(i) and (iii)); there was no material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; ADS failed to show service in Abu Dhabi by courier contravened UAE law; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to permit service out and dismissed ADS's summons to set aside or challenge service, awarding costs to Haitong.
12 Aug 2010

HARTANTO HADY v. RADNAABAZAR BAZAR

Citation

HARTANTO HADY v. RADNAABAZAR BAZAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA89/2008

Service was invalid because the mode of service did not conform to the modes prescribed by Hong Kong law for service outside the jurisdiction and did not satisfy Mongolian law (Article 77.2); the affidavit did not contain the required statements for postal service under Order 10(1)(2); accordingly the default judgment was set aside and costs ordered nisi.
13 Mar 2008

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV73/2007

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to show the proposed appeal raised questions of law of great general or public importance; the contested issues were discretionary and fact-specific and therefore did not meet the exceptional criteria for an interlocutory appeal under the CSAV authority.
31 Jul 2007

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV371/2006

Orders for service outside the jurisdiction obtained ex parte were set aside for material non-disclosure, but the plaintiff was not permanently barred from a renewed application; on the facts known the court concluded Hong Kong was an appropriate forum, Mrs Hu was a proper party with a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff's undertaking not to pursue Taiwanese civil judgment in respect of the same Hong Kong properties avoided double jeopardy, and leave was granted to serve the defendants outside the jurisdiction with the method of service to be directed by the master if not agreed.
28 Feb 2006

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2203/2004

Where there are directly conflicting affidavit statements on matters central to whether service out was properly granted (material non-disclosure and legality of foreign service) and those conflicts turn on foreign law and practice, fairness requires oral testimony; accordingly the court should exercise its discretion to order cross-examination to avoid a real risk of injustice and to enable a proper decision on forum and service issues.

Hong Kong Case Law

HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES CO LTD v. ADS SECURITIES LLC

HARTANTO HADY v. RADNAABAZAR BAZAR

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS