Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Choice of court clause

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2021

THE NATIONAL TRUST LTD v. TAHOE INVESTMENT GROUP CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2301/2020

Security for costs ordered: plaintiff unable to demonstrate the high degree of probability of success required to resist security for costs because (a) the Undertakings lack an express choice of Mainland court agreement likely required for enforcement under the MJREO and (b) the Undertakings prima facie do not operate as guarantees creating primary liability but rather require transfer of shareholdings, therefore plaintiff must provide security of HK$3,000,000 payable into court within 21 days; costs of the summons awarded to defendants with certificate for senior counsel; limited leave grant…
5 Oct 2018

WANG QIAN WEI v. 郭文雨 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2700/2017

The court held that (1) the plaintiff as assignee is a judgment creditor within the Ordinance and may rely on the choice of Mainland court clause confirmed in the 2nd Agreement and the Judgment; (2) on proper construction applying Hong Kong law in absence of PRC law evidence Clause 8 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the People's Court in Xiamen; and (3) the Mainland judgment is final and conclusive under s6(1)(b)(ii) having passed the appeal period and following dismissal of the retrial, therefore the originating summons to register the Mainland judgment succeeds.
30 Aug 2017

MADISON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LTD AND OTHERS v. LE ECOSYSTEM TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MADISON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LTD AND OTHERS v. LE ECOSYSTEM TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA194/2017

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the MSA could not be construed so as to automatically oust Hong Kong jurisdiction in respect of claims against non‑signatory defendants; ancillary documents (Payment Agreement and Undertaking) did not validly amend the MSA to extend the clause to non‑signatories absent clear and express intention and required formal amendment, and therefore a stay of Hong Kong proceedings as against the non‑signatory defendant was not justified.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE NATIONAL TRUST LTD v. TAHOE INVESTMENT GROUP CO., LTD AND OTHERS

WANG QIAN WEI v. 郭文雨 AND ANOTHER

MADISON COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LTD AND OTHERS v. LE ECOSYSTEM TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LTD AND ANOTHER