Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Choice of forum

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2025

LANDING ENTERTAINMENT KOREA CO LTD v. CHAU MEI YING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 114
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1045/2024

The NEJC was valid and enforceable; the defendant, who is resident in Hong Kong, failed to discharge the heavy burden to show the NEJC is invalid under Korean law or that Korea is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum; factual allegations and available evidence did not establish prejudice or impossibility of fair trial in Hong Kong; therefore the summons for a permanent stay was dismissed and the court held the parties to their contractual bargain.
23 Aug 2024

ING BANK N.V. v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2220
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL2/2023

The court found that Hong Kong is the appropriate forum because there is a good arguable case that Hong Kong law applies to the Collection Instructions and the disputes turn primarily on the URC and documentary evidence accessible in Hong Kong; Xi'an was not shown to be clearly or distinctly more appropriate and the defendant failed the first hurdle for a forum non conveniens stay, so the summons to stay was dismissed.
4 May 2023

RE GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM (林國雄)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 9
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV13/2022

Where a petition debt is disputed and the dispute falls within an exclusive jurisdiction clause covering legal proceedings, the court should, absent strong countervailing reasons (eg risk to third-party creditors, imminent and massive insolvency, abuse of process), decline to decide the dispute in Hong Kong and instead stay or dismiss the petition so the dispute can be determined in the agreed forum; the Established Approach requiring a debtor to show a bona fide dispute remains subject to this discretion and does not prevail over an operative EJC in ordinary cases.
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.
19 Jul 2022

CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (ASIA) CORPORATION LTD v. ZHANG KANGYANG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2135
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2021

The court dismissed the stay application and granted summary judgment for the Bank against the 3rd defendant because the exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction in the Intercreditor Agreement applies (centre of gravity is Hong Kong), the defendant failed to demonstrate strong cause for a stay, and his forgery defence lacked particulars, credibility and was undermined by contemporaneous evidence and a handwriting report confirming signatures.
10 May 2022

H v. G

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT71/2021

The Court held that Clause 11 of the Warranty is a specific, deliberate and effective carve-out from the general arbitration clause in Clause 35 of the Building Contract; the parties anticipated a third-party subcontractor warrantor and chose a different dispute resolution mechanism for warranty claims, which displaced the Fiona Trust presumption; accordingly the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction over claims under the Warranty and its determination was set aside.
21 Jan 2022

GOLDSLAND HOLDINGS CO LTD v. KOH SENG LEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 131
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA192/2018

The court exercised its case management discretion to grant a temporary stay because there was substantial overlap between the Hong Kong and Singapore proceedings, the Singapore proceedings will determine significant issues central to the Hong Kong claims, the defendants gave an undertaking to be bound by Singapore judgments, and a stay avoids duplication, inefficiency and risk of conflicting findings with no unacceptable prejudice to the plaintiff.
20 Sept 2019

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1062
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2019

The Court dismissed the appeal: the judge did not err in principle or law in concluding Hong Kong remains an appropriate forum and Changhong failed to show the SMC is clearly and distinctly more appropriate; the collision being in the PRC EEZ and the constitution of limitation funds in Shanghai did not, on the facts and given the stage of related SMC proceedings, outweigh factors favoring Hong Kong; lis alibi pendens and related proceedings were not sufficiently developed or prejudicial to justify a stay.
12 Feb 2018

The owners and/or those entitled to sue in respect of a cargo lately laden on board the ship or vessel “KAPPA SEA” v. The owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “KAPPA SEA”

Citation

[2018] HKCA 77
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP38/2017

The judge was plainly right that Yangon was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum; the plaintiffs unreasonably failed to issue a protective writ in Myanmar; the court properly declined to impose a condition that the defendant waive any time-bar; leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed.
21 Jul 2017

JOSEPH GHOSSOUB v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JOSEPH GHOSSOUB v. TEAM Y&R HOLDINGS HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV6/2017

The Court dismissed the respondents' appeal: the exclusive jurisdiction clauses did not extend to the petitioner’s exclusion and Makdessi complaints; to the extent an exclusive jurisdiction clause would fetter the statutory right to present an unfair prejudice petition it is inoperative; the English courts lack jurisdiction to grant the unfair prejudice relief sought for a Hong Kong company and would not provide substantial justice or effective remedies in this case; the judge did not err in refusing a stay and her discretionary decision was within a reasonable ambit.