Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forum selection

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2022

RE GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1297
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV393/2021

The Court of Appeal held the Agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause was engaged by the dispute over the guaranteed loan debt; absent strong reasons to the contrary the parties must be held to their forum agreement and the Hong Kong bankruptcy petition should not proceed before the dispute is determined in the agreed New York forum; Tor failed to show strong reasons to displace the clause, so the petition was dismissed.
24 Jan 2022

MAK v. LA

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1967/2020

The Court found a prima facie valid and enforceable arbitration agreement in the 16/6/18 letter (and 3/5/19 letter) covering disputes arising out of or in connection with participation in the Scheme, including claims to vesting and redemption of Units awarded in 2016–2018; section 20 requires referral to arbitration where a prima facie arbitration agreement exists and no sufficient reason not to do so; there was no nullity or unconscionability established; therefore claims concerning the Deferred Shares were referred to arbitration and the remaining related claims (2019 discretionary bonus/qu…
14 Jul 2020

PRAJNA SANTI BUDHIMULJA v. SHINHAN BANK

Citation

[2020] HKDC 542
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ348/2019

The court stayed all further conduct of the District Court action, including the interpleader summons, because the substantive dispute over beneficial ownership of the time deposit is more appropriately managed and decided in the Family Court under the MPPO which has no comparable monetary limit, and because the Claimant intends to challenge the Family Court's jurisdiction such that resolution of that challenge should determine the proper disposition of this action.
7 Sept 2010

LI GUOZHU v. MA HONGQI AND OTHERS

Citation

LI GUOZHU v. MA HONGQI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2023/2009

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed appeal lacked reasonable prospects: the Plaintiff's inconsistent conduct (deliberate non‑service and prior election that the 10th Defendant lacked locus) undermined his service argument; the judge was entitled to conclude the appropriate forum was Bao Ying and to hold the injunction binding only on the 11th Defendant and not the 10th Defendant.
20 Nov 2004

LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT68/2001

The Court refused to vary the provisional costs order except to clarify two points: (1) Linfield may recover from MML its own costs and those of PCL, BHP and GWA payable by Linfield (subject to MML's solvency); and (2) GWA must pay PCL's costs of GWA's contribution proceedings (taxed if not agreed) with Linfield to indemnify GWA for that liability. The Court held that GWA was wrongly sued and should not bear MML's insolvency, and that it was reasonable for Linfield to bear PCL's and BHP's costs arising from foreseeable contribution claims.
30 Jan 2003

YUEN YIU KWONG v. CHAN KWOK CHUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN YIU KWONG v. CHAN KWOK CHUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1356/1999

Plaintiff should receive costs up to and including 7 May 2002 on District Court scale because a properly advised plaintiff should have commenced in the District Court having regard to the known employees' compensation deduction; Defendants are entitled to costs after 7 May 2002 on High Court scale; the application to vary the order nisi is payable by Defendants and is fit for counsel.
12 Dec 2000

CHINA MERCHANTS HEAVY INDUSTRY CO., LTD. v. JGC CORPORATION

Citation

CHINA MERCHANTS HEAVY INDUSTRY CO., LTD. v. JGC CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT5/2000

Clause 12 was a valid arbitration clause; the defendant issued a binding decision letter (at latest 10 June 1999); the plaintiff failed to give the required written notice within 15 days and therefore lost the right to invoke arbitration but remained bound by the decision; accordingly the writ was stayed under s6 of the Arbitration Ordinance pending arbitration in Tokyo and the alternative application to set aside the writ was refused.
21 Apr 1999

COLLIERS JARDINE MANAGEMENT LTD. v. CHOW YUK LAN

Citation

COLLIERS JARDINE MANAGEMENT LTD. v. CHOW YUK LAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16082/1998

Summary judgment was refused because the defendant raised triable issues; the preponderance of authorities supports that disputes within Schedule 10 BMO should be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal and, where such cases are unjustifiably commenced in the High Court, the Court of First Instance may invoke its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings and limit costs to District Court scale; accordingly the action was stayed until further order with liberty to the plaintiff to withdraw or discontinue and no order as to costs on the summons.
14 Jan 1999

C. A. PACIFIC FOREX LTD. v. LEI KUAN IEONG

Citation

C. A. PACIFIC FOREX LTD. v. LEI KUAN IEONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV126/1998

Claims on dishonoured cheques, being separate unconditional promises to pay (bills of exchange), are not covered by the arbitration clause in the LFET agreement absent an express manifest inclusion; the appellant also failed to comply with LFET Rule 5(4) by not serving the required 14‑day arbitration notice and by seeking extensions which evidenced submission to the court, and therefore the appeal for a stay was dismissed and indemnity costs ordered.
12 Jan 1999

YU LAP MAN v. GOOD FIRST INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

YU LAP MAN v. GOOD FIRST INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV115/1998

Clause 5 did not, on proper construction and translation, confer exclusive jurisdiction on PRC courts; it operated as a choice of PRC law and a submission to PRC jurisdiction but was not assertive or sufficiently clear to exclude other jurisdictions; appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving exclusivity; appeal dismissed and costs ordered for respondent.