Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Antisuit injunction

Legal area

Court

4 Dec 2020

CAPITAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. 南通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT66/2020

Given the circumstances (plaintiffs knew hearing dates and did not seek withdrawal; WFOEs only raised a jurisdictional challenge after the interim injunction; Mainland law prevents substantive hearing while a jurisdictional challenge is pending), the court varied the interim injunction to permit the defendant first to apply to the Nantong Intermediate People’s Court for a stay or adjournment of the WFOE Proceedings (including the WFOEs' jurisdictional challenge), and only if that application fails, to take steps to oppose or respond to the WFOEs' jurisdictional challenge and to attend the lis…
10 Jul 2020

[C] v. [D]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT29/2020

The court refused the interim antisuit injunction because the applicant had not met the high threshold required given the intrusiveness of the relief on the eve of the BVI hearing, the urgency was largely self-induced, the respondent lacked a full opportunity to respond, comity and resource-wastage considerations weighed against injunction, and it was not plain that the winding up proceedings fell outside the arbitration agreement.
11 Dec 2019

DICKSON VALORA GROUP (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. FAN JI QIAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2953
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1954/2018

Indemnity costs were not warranted generally because (a) the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and so there was no contractual breach justifying indemnity as of right, and (b) litigation in breach of a forum agreement does not as such attract automatic indemnity costs; however, indemnity costs were justified in respect of the defendant's 23 January 2019 summons because that summons was an abuse and a 'monumental afterthought.' Accordingly the costs order was varied only to award indemnity costs in respect of that summons; all other costs to remain party and party with cer…
20 Feb 2019

DICKSON VALORA GROUP (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. FAN JI QIAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1954/2018

The 3rd Addendum is to be read as part of the Shareholders Agreement and therefore is subject to its Hong Kong governing law and arbitration clause; a person seeking to enforce rights derived from that contract (even if not an original signatory) must recognise and submit to the contractual dispute resolution mechanism and may be restrained by an antisuit injunction; the Qianhai Court decision does not create an issue estoppel in Hong Kong because FJRREO s3 prevents recognition where proceedings were contrary to an arbitration agreement; no strong discretionary reasons existed to refuse the i…
15 Oct 2014

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES SA v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES SA v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1449/2014

The court discharged the HinPro Mareva, the HinPro Receivership Order, the Soar Mareva and the Soar Receivership Order because the plaintiff had put the court in the position of choosing between conflicting foreign proceedings without disclosing material facts about active PRC proceedings and a PRC judgment, such that under s21M(4) and principles of international judicial comity it was unjust and inconvenient for the court to grant or continue the relief; the defendant's undertaking in lieu was accepted as adequate protection and costs were awarded to the defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

CAPITAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. 南通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司

[C] v. [D]

DICKSON VALORA GROUP (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. FAN JI QIAN

DICKSON VALORA GROUP (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. FAN JI QIAN

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES SA v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD