Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitrability

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2025

P v. D

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT107/2025

On the evidence and authorities the court reached a provisional conclusion that there was at least a prima facie (and if necessary compelling) case that the disputes concerning the Alleged Settlement Agreement fall within the ambit of the wide arbitration clauses in the Agreements because the Alleged Settlement Agreement derives from and settles issues under those Agreements and draft supplemental deeds incorporated arbitration; the applicant acted promptly; comity and delay did not outweigh enforcement of the arbitration agreement; substituted service was properly ordered given game playing;…
18 Mar 2025

PI 1 & PI 2 v. MR

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT100/2024

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application and held that the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction: claims alleging unfairly oppressive or discriminatory conduct and loss of trust and confidence are arbitrable where they arise out of or relate to the Transaction Agreements; Family-Mart requires that such precursor factual and mixed fact-law issues be decided by the tribunal while recognizing the court's exclusive power to grant winding-up or buy-out relief.
3 Jan 2025

WANG & LEE CONTRACTING LTD v. YOUNG KWONG PUI trading as IN TECH ENGINEERING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 66
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP729/2024

The arbitration clause covers the present disputes because the defendant's defences and set-off claim are contractual and inextricably linked to the underlying written Agreement; adjudication of the plaintiff's claims necessarily requires resolving those contractual issues and therefore the action must be stayed and referred to arbitration.
6 Nov 2024

JINGDONG E-COMMERCE (TRADE) HONG KONG CORPORATION LTD v. MAVIN ELECTRONS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1032/2023

Defendant established a prima facie case that the SPA arbitration clause (Clause 9.9) covers the present disputes so the court must stay proceedings in favour of arbitration; the 8/12/22 Agreement did not plainly and unequivocally waive the arbitration clause, the SPA clause is wide and the 8/12/22 Agreement expressly refers to the SPA and Supplemental Agreement, and questions about reliance on SPA clause 3.5 and set-off are appropriately for the tribunal to determine first.
24 Sept 2024

BANK A v. BANK B

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT16/2024

The arbitration clause in the TSA is valid and covers the disputes; Article 19 Basic Law does not apply because no question of fact concerning an act of state arises; the defendant failed to show strong reasons (futility, public policy or inability to have a fair trial) to refuse enforcement of the arbitration agreement; accordingly final and mandatory injunctions and declaratory relief to restrain the Russian proceedings and their enforcement were granted.
30 May 2024

SA AND OTHERS v. BH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT69/2023

Order 73 does not exclude the operation of Order 23 RHC in proceedings commenced by a party to set aside an arbitral award; the plaintiffs, as the initiators of the setting aside proceedings, are properly plaintiffs for the purposes of Order 23 and the Court therefore has jurisdiction to order security for costs. Considering plaintiffs' foreign residence, lack of readily realizable assets in Hong Kong, adverse tribunal findings, limited merits and risk of non‑recovery, it is just to order security of HK$2,000,000; proceedings are stayed until payment or acceptable bank guarantee is provided w…
16 Feb 2023

LI WENJUN v. CHEN CHUNHUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2021

The court construed Clause 14.1 under PRC law as limited to disputes arising from a party's failure to perform contractual obligations and held tortious claims in this action fall outside the Clause; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the dispute is arbitrable under the Clause and, in any event, waived the right to arbitrate by conduct (defending on the merits, applying for and agreeing security for costs, and not objecting to the amendment), so the stay under s.20 was refused.
30 Nov 2021

ZPMC-RED BOX ENERGY SERVICES LTD v. PHILIP JEFFREY ADKINS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1510/2020

The court refused the stay because the substantive disputes concern breaches by D1 arising from his position and the CEO Contract (which contains no arbitration clause) and D1 is not party to the SHA or FSA; claims against D2 and D3 are accessory knowing receipt claims dependent on D1's primary liability; the agreement at the centre of gravity is the CEO Contract and the SHA/FSA arbitration clauses do not cover these disputes, so the Amended Summons to stay was dismissed.
27 May 2021

HOUTAI INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LTD v. LEUNG YAT TUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1504
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1725/2019

Clause 22 of the Articles is prima facie broad enough to encompass the Plaintiff's claims which are connected to the Sub-subcontract; there is a prima facie arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and the 4th Defendant and under section 20 of the Arbitration Ordinance the Court must refer the parties to arbitration. The action against the remaining Defendants is stayed as a matter of case management because their liability is contingent on the outcome of the arbitration and there is overlap of factual issues creating risk of duplication and conflicting outcomes.
18 Mar 2020

CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 355
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW34/2018

The strike out application was dismissed because on a common-sense multi-factor assessment the Company had a sufficient connection with Hong Kong (management and ownership links) and the petition was not bound to fail on the pleaded case; the application to stay the petition to arbitration was refused because the complaints form a single continuing narrative, only some elements were governed by arbitration clauses and it was not clear that arbitral resolution would be central and determinative of the petition's factual issues (and the Framework Agreement likely superseded some prior obligatio…