Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Double actionability rule

Legal area

Court

31 Aug 2023

TSAI LEE TING AND ANOTHER v. BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2124
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA102/2023

At interlocutory stage the court found a good arguable case of fraud and that representative proceedings were properly constituted for the common issue that the investment products were fraudulent; however plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case as to quantum sufficient to justify Mareva injunctions at the claimed ceiling and had not adequately disclosed the potential double actionability defence at the ex parte stage; accordingly Mareva injunctions against D8 and D10 were not continued and the Mareva against D9 was discharged, while proprietary injunctions were continued agains…
29 Apr 2020

FONG CHAK KWAN v. ASCENTIC LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 679
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI242/2016

The court held plaintiff had established a good arguable case under Gateway C and under Gateway D (sub-ground 3) and that there was a serious question to be tried; on balance Hong Kong was clearly the more appropriate forum for trial; limited material non-disclosures (defendants' and plaintiff's PRC connections and plaintiff's PRC residence) did not justify discharging the ex parte Yu Order or preventing re-granting of leave; accordingly the summons to set aside the Yu Order and for a stay was dismissed and the ex parte leave to serve the concurrent writ on the US defendant was maintained (le…
1 Apr 2020

CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3272/2016

Leave to appeal refused because the judge correctly applied the substance test and Spiliada balancing to conclude the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong, there is no realistic prospect that a novel contention (displacing Hong Kong law by reference to the governing contract or foreign public policy) would succeed, and no error of principle or material fact that justifies appellate intervention.
29 Jan 2019

HANWHA TOTAL PETROCHEMICAL CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 263
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ6/2018

The application for a stay was dismissed because there were no sufficiently parallel proceedings between the same parties in Shanghai to engage lis alibi pendens; the mis-declaration claim in Shanghai is not sufficiently connected and could not operate as a counterclaim in Hong Kong due to the double actionability rule; the 2nd plaintiff's registration in limitation proceedings was a protective measure and does not justify a stay; plaintiffs' choice to litigate in Hong Kong was legitimate.
20 Feb 2004

SHANGHAI REEFERCO CONTAINER CO LTD v. WAGGONBAU ELZE GMBH & CO BESITZ KG

Citation

SHANGHAI REEFERCO CONTAINER CO LTD v. WAGGONBAU ELZE GMBH & CO BESITZ KG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3341/2003

Threats founded on section 89 must have been made within Hong Kong to be justiciable; the double actionability rule and territoriality of patent rights apply so the threats made and received outside Hong Kong are not actionable here; accordingly the threats claim is dismissed. Applications to stay the revocation claim and for a speedy trial are refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

TSAI LEE TING AND ANOTHER v. BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND OTHERS

FONG CHAK KWAN v. ASCENTIC LTD AND OTHERS

CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

HANWHA TOTAL PETROCHEMICAL CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

SHANGHAI REEFERCO CONTAINER CO LTD v. WAGGONBAU ELZE GMBH & CO BESITZ KG