Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extra-territorial jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2021

BIOZEAL, LLC AND ANOTHER v. NATURE’S STORY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3137
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP34/2021

The court found a strong arguable case that the plaintiffs own the CHILDLIFE marks and the Heart Device and associated goodwill and that the defendants' continued use and representations in the Flagship Stores amount to actionable passing-off/misrepresentation actionable in the Mainland under AUCL; Hong Kong has personal jurisdiction over the defendants; irreparable damage and balance of convenience favour interim relief; accordingly an interlocutory injunction was granted with specified territorial and party limitations subject to HK$5,000,000 paid into court as fortification and other terms.
1 Dec 2020

CHANGFENG SHIPPING HOLDINGS LTD v. SINORICHES ENTERPRISES CO., LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2703
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT59/2019

The court has jurisdiction under Order 48 rule 1 to order examination of officers of a corporate judgment debtor resident inside or outside Hong Kong. Leave to serve such an examination order out of the jurisdiction under Order 11 rule 9(4) requires the applicant to show (i) the officer likely has knowledge of the corporate debtor’s finances and (ii) a close connection between the officer’s conduct and the subject matter of the judgment such that it would be unjust not to exercise jurisdiction; at the ex parte stage a good arguable case on these points suffices. On the facts, those thresholds…
16 Feb 2015

HKSAR v. WONG TAK KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG TAK KEUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2014

Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because there was no evidential basis to conclude the appellant was party to the conspiracy to export drugs from Hong Kong (the conspiracy's object was fulfilled on departure of the courier), the trial judge's direction on inference was defective, and neither common law nor Crimes Ordinance s159A permit treating the indictment as an expanded, extra-territorial conspiracy implicating the appellant's wholly Australian conduct.
28 Oct 2013

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YOUNG BIK FUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YOUNG BIK FUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2575/2010

The applications were dismissed because the issues raised involved novel questions of law and disputed facts such that it was not plain and obvious the claims under s291 and s300 were unsustainable; the natural meaning of s300 does not require the person defrauded to be a party to the securities transaction and the device/scheme limb can cover misuse of confidential information; it was at least arguable Hong Kong had jurisdiction given substantial relevant acts occurred in Hong Kong; consequently strike out and preliminary determination were inappropriate and the issues must proceed to trial.
25 Sept 2007

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2007

The application was refused because the court has no jurisdiction to direct the Secretary for Justice to use his best endeavours to obtain an embargo from foreign (Italian) authorities, the issue of embargo is governed by Italian law and courts, and issuing such a direction risks breaching comity and cannot be effectively policed by this court.
8 Jun 2004

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF B+B CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. ULRICH WEINMANN AND OTHERS

Citation

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF B+B CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. ULRICH WEINMANN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW114/2001

The court held that as a matter of statutory construction section 221 is not confined to persons present within the jurisdiction and the court has hearing jurisdiction to make orders for private examination in respect of persons outside Hong Kong; the court also has order jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, to grant leave to serve such orders out of the jurisdiction and must consider enforcement, comity and available machinery when exercising its discretion. Applying that discretion the court ordered oral examination of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents (with limited production orders), a…

Hong Kong Case Law

BIOZEAL, LLC AND ANOTHER v. NATURE’S STORY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

CHANGFENG SHIPPING HOLDINGS LTD v. SINORICHES ENTERPRISES CO., LTD

HKSAR v. WONG TAK KEUNG

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YOUNG BIK FUNG AND OTHERS

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF B+B CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. ULRICH WEINMANN AND OTHERS