Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent writ

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2016

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. RIO TINTO SHIPPING (ASIA) PTE. LTD

Citation

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. RIO TINTO SHIPPING (ASIA) PTE. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA446/2015

Leave was set aside and the action dismissed because Newocean failed to establish a good arguable contractual claim within Order 11 r 1(1)(d) — there was no evidence of a contract or of an agency relationship binding RTS to Newocean — and there was material non‑disclosure in the ex parte application; accordingly the Leave Order could not stand and leave was not re‑granted.
7 Sept 2010

BEL NICKEL RESOURCES LTD v. EASTBOURNE TRADING PTE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BEL NICKEL RESOURCES LTD v. EASTBOURNE TRADING PTE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2042/2009

The court held that the alleged non-disclosure (the Good Year Agreement and related factual disputes) went to the merits and would not have defeated the provisional ex parte assessment; defendants admitted the BEL Agreement was signed for the 1st defendant and the plaintiff established serious questions to be tried against all defendants; accordingly the Masters order granting leave to serve out was not shown to be improperly obtained and the summons to discharge was dismissed; Hong Kong was not shown to be clearly or distinctly inappropriate as forum.
10 Mar 2009

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA665/2009

Because the Defendant was outside the jurisdiction, unwilling to submit to Hong Kong proceedings, and there was a real risk that assets would be removed to frustrate enforcement of any judgment, the court was satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction was met and therefore granted a freezing order while discharging earlier injunctions.
7 Jul 1982

KROHN AND CO IMPORT/EXPORT v. OAK STEAMSHIP CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KROHN AND CO IMPORT/EXPORT v. OAK STEAMSHIP CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ268/1980

The court held that the Amendment Rules of 1981 deprived old-form personal writs of the ability to be served after 15 September 1981 so service on 5 October 1981 was ineffective rather than a mere irregularity; extension/renewal would therefore improperly deprive defendants of their statutory time-bar defence under Article III and plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances to justify departure from the general rule; Master Blackwell’s orders extending the writ and permitting a concurrent new-form writ were set aside and the plaintiff’s application to amend the writ was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. RIO TINTO SHIPPING (ASIA) PTE. LTD

BEL NICKEL RESOURCES LTD v. EASTBOURNE TRADING PTE LTD AND OTHERS

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE

KROHN AND CO IMPORT/EXPORT v. OAK STEAMSHIP CO LTD AND ANOTHER