Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforceability of foreign judgments

Legal area

Court

6 Jun 2025

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NINGBO C.F. ELECTRONIC TECH CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2340/2024

Material non‑disclosure of a significant legal point (conflicting authorities on PTIO s7) at the ex parte Mareva application warranted discharge of the original injunction; however, because the omission related to a difficult point of law and was not deliberate and because the plaintiff nonetheless demonstrated a strong arguable case that (i) a compensatory Lanham Act award of US$4,900,000 is separately enforceable and (ii) there is a real risk of asset dissipation and a good arguable case to pierce the corporate veil, the court exercised its discretion to re‑grant the Mareva injunction in mo…
15 Nov 2018

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2474
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2018

Changhong failed to establish at stage 1 that the Shanghai Maritime Court is clearly and distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong for trial of the inter-ship action; documentary and investigatory evidence was available to Hong Kong, parallel Mainland proceedings were unserved on the plaintiff and not determinative, and the plaintiff would lose a legitimate juridical advantage (notably the higher Hong Kong tonnage limitation and time‑bar consequences in the Mainland) if a stay were granted; accordingly the stay application was dismissed.
2 May 2013

WONG CHI HUNG v. 郭國基 AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG CHI HUNG v. 郭國基 AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1897/2012

Defendants' applications (both the late summons to specify a PRC court and the summons for a stay) were dismissed: defendants failed to specify an appropriate PRC forum in time and failed to discharge the burden to show the PRC courts were clearly more appropriate given the strong real and substantial connection of the case to Hong Kong; procedural matters are governed by the lex fori and merits (including double actionability) cannot be resolved on this interlocutory application.
27 Aug 2012

RICH VILLAGE LTD v. GRAND PRIDE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RICH VILLAGE LTD v. GRAND PRIDE HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA867/2012

Clause 13.2 is a non-exclusive (declaratory) jurisdiction clause; applying forum non conveniens principles and having regard to the subject matter (shares in a Hong Kong company) and the fact Hong Kong law governs and a Ningbo judgment may be unenforceable in Hong Kong, Hong Kong is the appropriate forum; defendants' jurisdictional challenge dismissed; leave to serve out was properly granted; the ex parte injunction is continued subject to fortification of HK$10,000,000 and a speedy trial ordered.
4 Oct 2010

HUNG FUNG ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

Citation

HUNG FUNG ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16459/1998

The plaintiffs' claims failed because no legally concluded Swap Agreement was proved (parties at most reached an agreement subject to approval/formalities) and, in any event, under PRC law a foreign economic contract of the nature alleged required writing so an oral swap was ineffective; misrepresentation and conversion claims failed on the evidence and legal tests; the Bank's counterclaim succeeded for unpaid loan capital and interest (subject to assessment) though PRC doubled-interest penalties were not enforced by this Court.
10 Dec 1997

EVER CHANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHING KAI CHIU t/a WING HUNG HARDWARE & MACHINERY CO AND OTHERS

Citation

EVER CHANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHING KAI CHIU t/a WING HUNG HARDWARE & MACHINERY CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12909/1994

Defendants raised a bona fide and substantial defence that their obligations under the July memorandum are contingent on the first defendant's liability under a loan agreement that foreign courts declared invalid and treated by way of restitution; because the issues are materially different from matters previously decided, res judicata does not preclude the defence and unconditional leave to defend must be granted.
16 Aug 1979

LIN FUNG TRADING CO v. HANADE WAFU

Citation

LIN FUNG TRADING CO v. HANADE WAFU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/1979

The court held that the second order was not made under Order 44A but constituted an undertaking obtainable under the court's general jurisdiction; accordingly the judge had power to discharge it. However the judge misapplied his discretion by relying on unsupported assertions about enforceability in Japan and changed tracing prospects and by overweighting an anticipated long delay that proved incorrect; accordingly the third order was wrongly made and must be revoked, restoring the second order.

Hong Kong Case Law

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NINGBO C.F. ELECTRONIC TECH CO., LTD AND OTHERS

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

WONG CHI HUNG v. 郭國基 AND OTHERS

RICH VILLAGE LTD v. GRAND PRIDE HOLDINGS LTD

HUNG FUNG ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA

EVER CHANCE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHING KAI CHIU t/a WING HUNG HARDWARE & MACHINERY CO AND OTHERS

LIN FUNG TRADING CO v. HANADE WAFU