Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of foreign arbitral award

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2023

HONG KONG TOPKEY LTD v. WINTAC (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA667/2022

The interim-interim Mareva injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate urgency: the Award dated 11 April 2022 and related matters were long known, the plaintiff delayed from January 2023 and otherwise pursued alternative processes (including a bankruptcy petition), making the urgency self-induced; accordingly interim freezing relief was not justified and the summons was adjourned for full argument with directions.
28 Jan 2022

LIN CHIEN HSIUNG v. LIN HSIU FEN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT24/2021

Leave to adduce the applicant's further expert PRC law evidence was granted because the respondent had put the suspension of the award under PRC law squarely in issue by filing expert evidence in reply; the applicant was entitled to respond notwithstanding delay, and the respondent suffered no prejudice caused by that delay given her own failure to comply with the rule requiring early disclosure; costs were to follow the grant of indulgence to the applicant.
18 Aug 2021

廣東順德展煒商貿有限公司 v. SUN FUNG TIMBER CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT25/2019

Security application dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the award was manifestly valid given realistic prospects of success on multiple grounds (invalid arbitration agreement/authority, defective notice/service, and material non-disclosure by GD regarding sale of the registered office/property); GD's non-disclosure was material and misleading; there was no evidence NI could cause dissipation of assets to defeat enforcement; accordingly security was unnecessary and unjustified.
3 Aug 2021

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL13/2011

The Court held that the Plaintiff's Statement of Case was sufficiently particularised for present purposes and complied with the Order; Hong Kong law (the lex fori) governs the entire enforcement action on the implied promise including assessment of damages; the Defendants' application for further particulars was dismissed; paragraphs of the Defendants' Response that pleaded PRC law as governing assessment of damages and that the Plaintiff should have returned to CIETAC were struck out as barred by issue estoppel, disclosure of no reasonable defence, or abuse of process; costs awarded to the…
25 May 2021

A CO v. B CO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT25/2020

The Enforcement Order was set aside because at the time of the ex parte application the Applicant had ongoing enforcement proceedings on the Mainland which, under section 93 of the Arbitration Ordinance, precluded a Hong Kong enforcement application until those Mainland enforcement proceedings were completed or concluded, and because the Applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts to the Court when seeking ex parte leave.
24 Mar 2021

SHENZHEN HONEYCOMB SYSTEM CO LTD v. HCT TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 387
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV199/2020

The Court awarded indemnity costs because the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, was instituted and pursued in a manner intended to delay enforcement of the arbitration award and to secure a stay, thereby constituting an abuse of the appeal process; accordingly indemnity costs were appropriate and ordered.
15 Dec 2020

SHENZHEN HONEYCOMB SYSTEM CO LTD v. HCT TECHNOLOGIES (HONG KONG) CO., LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3076
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT20/2019

The appeal lacks reasonable prospects of success because the Decision correctly held that Jin was the validly registered Legal Representative with authority to institute proceedings for SHS under Mainland law; the majority shareholders' opposition was immaterial absent steps to change the Legal Representative; accordingly the stay is refused unless the respondent pays the Award into court by the specified deadline, in which case a stay will be granted pending appeal.
14 Oct 2020

JEANNY HELENA FRANKSLAY v. SY WAI SHAN SANDY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7035/2019

Because the petitions are founded on a subsisting judgment enforcing a foreign arbitral award, the judgment debt constitutes prima facie evidence of indebtedness; the respondents' appeals against decisions refusing to set aside statutory demands did not challenge the underlying judgment or award and did not demonstrate fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice or a reasonable prospect of success on newly raised grounds, so they failed to rebut the prima facie case and the court was entitled to make bankruptcy orders against each respondent.
5 Nov 2019

DING YI v. SHUM TUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1195
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP231/2019

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant had a substantial unjustified delay (more than 2 months) for which inadequate excuses were given and, on the merits, the appeal had no real prospect of success: the anti-suit injunction was unnecessary because the Trustees could not act in the Mainland and the respondent provided an undertaking to bring any assets realized into the Hong Kong bankruptcy estate, so Mainland enforcement would not subvert the statutory insolvency distribution; accordingly the summons was dismissed and leave denied.
10 Dec 2018

XIAMEN XINJINGDI GROUP CO LTD formerly known as (廈門巿鑫新景地房地產有限公司) v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 942
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV158/2012

The court refused leave because the contested questions were either not questions of great general or public importance or not reasonably arguable; it held that a common law action on an award is founded on an implied promise to comply with the award so damages compensate non-performance of the award (not the underlying contract’s loss of bargain); the inducing breach, conspiracy and constructive trust claims failed on settled law and concurrent factual findings and thus did not merit certification to the Court of Final Appeal.