Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Choice of law

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

HE WEI v. ZHAO JIANGONG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA732/2025

Because the Writ was validly served in Hong Kong the defendant bore a very high burden which he did not discharge: the evidence indicated the intended and actual place of performance and significant dealings (fund transfer, conversion, investment and repayments) were connected to Hong Kong, there is a good arguable case Hong Kong law applies, the Beijing proceedings were commenced late and appear tactical and unrelated to the claimed sums, and the fresh evidence was inadmissible; accordingly Hong Kong is the appropriate forum and the stay and new evidence applications were dismissed.
24 Nov 2025

張輝 trading as 恆輝手袋製品廠對百順企業(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1941
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6462/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found both parties knew the cargo comprised leather off-cuts/prohibited waste and that the contracts had a common illegal purpose to bring the goods into Mainland China by smuggling; accordingly the agreements were unenforceable on public policy grounds and both the plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim were dismissed; no costs ordered.
21 Oct 2025

HYALROUTE COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 936
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV600/2025

The Summons for an interim anti-suit injunction was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to show a real prospect of success on appeal: although the construction ground was reasonably arguable, the Plaintiff's defence to the debt was not reasonably arguable (found hopeless and frivolous), so there was no basis for an ASI pending appeal.
5 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCA 824
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP239/2024

Leave to appeal dismissed because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on the challenged grounds; the judge's decision refusing a stay on forum non conveniens grounds was within the proper discretionary evaluative exercise, Hong Kong has a real and substantial connection, the alternative Mainland-law arguments did not render Xi'an clearly or distinctly more appropriate, and the proposed new evidence did not meet the criteria for admission on appeal.
1 Aug 2025

HYALROUTE COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2417
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT155/2024

On proper construction of Clause 43.1 governed by Hong Kong law, the court must assess whether Cayman winding-up proceedings would be capable of 'finally resolving' the dispute; that assessment requires reference to Cayman law on finality/estoppel. Cayman law (as informed by Sian Participation and Re BPGIC) indicates winding-up proceedings do not finally determine the petition debt or create conclusive estoppel over substantive rights. Therefore the Defendant's presentation of Cayman winding-up proceedings would not breach Clause 43.1, the Plaintiff failed to show the high probability of succ…
8 Apr 2025

WONG SHUN OI v. LO WING SHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2526/2024

The court refused to order a transfer because that relief was not pleaded in the Writ and Statement of Claim, and refused the declaration because the claim was a proprietary cause of action governed by PRC law and there was no basis to make the order; accordingly paragraph (i) of the summons was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
7 Jun 2024

MUTUTAL BRILLIANT LTD v. SHIN HO CABLE (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 519
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV170/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the Judge's and Master's orders, and granted relief from sanction and extension of time because (i) the defendants' delay was insubstantial and non‑contumelous, (ii) the proposed Group 1 (choice of PRC law) and Group 3 (uncertainty) amendments were at least arguable and not bound to fail at pleading stage, (iii) the prejudice to the plaintiff from allowing amendments and delay was minimal and compensable by costs, and (iv) the sanction of debarring amendments was disproportionate in the circumstances.
18 Jan 2024

WONG YAN YAN AND ANOTHER v. HUI MAN FAN CINDY aka HUI MIU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 116
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ778/2021

The Court had jurisdiction under Order 11 r1(c) because defendants within jurisdiction were alleged to have acted in concert to receive the plaintiffs' payments; the defendants failed to name a specific PRC court and failed to discharge the burden of establishing that a PRC forum is clearly and distinctly more appropriate — factors raised (location of negotiations, witnesses, accounts, governing law) were insufficient alone or cumulatively to displace Hong Kong as the natural forum — therefore the summons to dispute jurisdiction and to stay for forum non conveniens was dismissed.
12 Jan 2024

LILI HU v. NEW NORDIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 9
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ332/2022

Plaintiff failed to establish a proprietary claim against NN Hong Kong because the PPSA was between Hu and VIP (NN Hong Kong was not a contracting party), Hu had not rescinded the voidable contract nor made counter‑restitution, and there was therefore no proprietary interest or trust duty established against NN Hong Kong; consequently there was no serious issue to be tried against NN Hong Kong and the proprietary injunction was discharged and the action stayed to permit rectification if possible.