Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forum non conveniens

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

TANG QIONG v. ZHANG TING TING

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2499
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA452/2018

The court exercised its unfettered discretion on costs and held that the Plaintiff failed to show any special or unusual feature justifying indemnity costs; the Calderbank offer was not a sanctioned offer and, although a relevant factor, was insufficient to warrant indemnity costs; the costs order nisi was made absolute for standard costs, and the Plaintiff's variation application was dismissed.
17 Apr 2026

NEW DELTA TRADING CO., LTD v. SOUTH CHINA DEVELOPMENT (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2125
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1492/2023

The appeal is dismissed because the EPC contains a valid and sufficiently broad exclusive jurisdiction clause covering the Plaintiff’s claims; the Plaintiff failed to mount a pleaded specific attack or produce cogent evidence that the EJC itself was procured by fraud; separability applies so challenges to the main agreement do not displace the EJC; on the facts the dispute and connecting factors point to Shanghai and, even absent the EJC, forum non conveniens would have justified a stay in favour of the Shanghai Court.
15 Apr 2026

HE WEI v. ZHAO JIANGONG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1886
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA732/2025

Because the Writ was validly served in Hong Kong the defendant bore a very high burden which he did not discharge: the evidence indicated the intended and actual place of performance and significant dealings (fund transfer, conversion, investment and repayments) were connected to Hong Kong, there is a good arguable case Hong Kong law applies, the Beijing proceedings were commenced late and appear tactical and unrelated to the claimed sums, and the fresh evidence was inadmissible; accordingly Hong Kong is the appropriate forum and the stay and new evidence applications were dismissed.
2 Feb 2026

HENRY SHING HIM CHOW AND ANOTHER v. LING KAM TONG, VICTOR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP104/2025

Clause 17 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause but not absolutely determinative; because the claims against the Trustees and the stranger Chow are inextricably linked, there were sufficiently good reasons to depart from the EJC to avoid parallel proceedings and to try the whole dispute in Hong Kong; Chow is a stranger and cannot rely on Clause 17; Trustees failed to show an arguable defence on summary judgment; leave to appeal, extension of time and stay applications lacked reasonable prospects and were dismissed.
2 Feb 2026

HENRY SHING HIM CHOW AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR LING KAM TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP106/2025

Clause 17 is an exclusive jurisdiction clause as construed, but the court properly exercised its discretion to decline to give effect to the EJC because the claims against the Trustees and the stranger (Chow) were inextricably linked, multiplicity of proceedings would result, Chow cannot rely on the EJC as a stranger or constructive trustee, Hong Kong is the more appropriate forum on FNC analysis, and the Trustees failed to show an arguable defence so summary judgment and disclosure were properly granted; accordingly leave and stay applications and extension of time were dismissed and costs a…
2 Feb 2026

HENRY SHING HIM CHOW AND ANOTHER v. LING KAM TONG, VICTOR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP105/2025

Although Clause 17 is an exclusive BVI jurisdiction clause by construction, the court retains a discretion not to enforce it; taking account of claims against a third party who is a stranger to the trust, the risk of multiplicity of proceedings and the factors in the Spiliada analysis, the interests of justice justified declining to give effect to the EJC and keeping all related proceedings in Hong Kong; the Trustees failed to show an arguable defence and summary judgment for disclosure in Action (1) was properly entered; the intended appeals lacked a reasonable prospect of success and applic…
30 Jan 2026

TKW v. CYKJ AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 96
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP216/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the application lacked a reasonable prospect of success and the applicant failed to follow the required first‑instance procedure; on the merits the permanent stay was properly made as the Hong Kong wardship proceedings would duplicate advanced Australian proceedings and Australia was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum for determining custody, care and control of the children, rendering continuation of the OS inappropriate.
27 Nov 2025

CYMY v. YKKE

Citation

[2025] HKFC 190
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP142/2024

The respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal; the Family Court has jurisdiction under the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance as confirmed by the CFA in QMY v GSS and may only decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds; the factors relied on by the respondent (habitual residence in the PRC, non‑enforceability of orders in the PRC, availability of PRC local bodies) did not establish that Hong Kong was an improper forum; accordingly leave to appeal and the application for a stay of execution were dismissed and costs were awarded against the respondent.
11 Nov 2025

P v. D

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5424
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT107/2025

On the evidence and authorities the court reached a provisional conclusion that there was at least a prima facie (and if necessary compelling) case that the disputes concerning the Alleged Settlement Agreement fall within the ambit of the wide arbitration clauses in the Agreements because the Alleged Settlement Agreement derives from and settles issues under those Agreements and draft supplemental deeds incorporated arbitration; the applicant acted promptly; comity and delay did not outweigh enforcement of the arbitration agreement; substituted service was properly ordered given game playing;…
26 Sept 2025

MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTD v. TSANG YEUK KWAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA195/2025

The New Evidence was inadmissible because it was not genuinely newly arisen after the Order, D and his Singapore advisers had prior knowledge (April Letter), there was unjustified delay and inequitable conduct in withholding the materials, exclusion did not amount to a travesty of justice, and consequently the Stay Summons lacked foundation because D failed to identify an available Singapore forum clearly more appropriate and did not discharge the heavy burden for an FNC stay.