Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forum selection clause

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

RE NORTH STAR ELECTRONIC (HONGKONG) LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW658/2025

The Petition was dismissed because (1) the promissory note contained a forum-selection clause demonstrating the parties intended Texas jurisdiction and the Petitioner was bound by acceptance of the note; (2) the Company established a bona fide substantial dispute (fraud, misrepresentation and sham) as to the validity/enforceability of the note such that the debt was not established; (3) presentation of the Petition in Hong Kong in those circumstances constituted an abuse of process and the Petitioner lacked locus as a creditor; and (4) the Petitioner’s authority to present the Petition was ta…
17 May 2024

LIU, PEIBAO v. TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA229/2023

The court upheld the master’s striking out of the claim because the evidence established that the User Agreement and operation of Weixin were through Shenzhen Tencent, not HK Tencent, there was no evidential basis that HK Tencent was party to the contract or involved in the alleged restrictions, and therefore the claim against HK Tencent was hopeless, frivolous and an abuse of process under O.18 r.19 RHC; consequently the appeal and cross‑appeal were dismissed and no substantive orders on the defendant's summons were required.
23 Apr 2024

ARJOWIGGINS HKK 2 LTD v. SHANDONG CHENMING PAPER HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 352
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV347/2023

The Court held that the principle in Guy Lam applies to cross-claims as well as disputes about the petition debt: where the dispute underlying a cross-claim falls within a valid arbitration agreement, the court should ordinarily decline to decide the matter and stay or dismiss the winding-up petition pending arbitration, absent abuse of process or countervailing public interest factors.
22 Jan 2024

RE GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM

Citation

[2024] HKCA 88
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV393/2021

Leave to appeal was dismissed: there is no general rule that proceedings in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause should as a rule attract indemnity costs; the award of indemnity costs remains a discretionary matter and the facts of this case did not justify indemnity costs (Tor's conduct was not sufficiently egregious).
7 Jan 2020

SUEN KWAI KAM v. CENTRAL CHINA DRAGON SELECT GROWTH FUND

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 69
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1264/2019

At the interlocutory stage the court will not determine complex illegality issues on summary application; an anti-suit injunction requires a convincing prima facie case of the contractual right to the nominated forum or independent unconscionable conduct amounting to vexatious or oppressive foreign proceedings, assessed with caution and regard to comity.
8 Mar 2019

天津市裕豐隆資產管理有限公司 v. HO KIN WA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2405/2014

On the facts the court held that D1 had not waived the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court; the jurisdiction clauses in the Indemnity and Supplemental Indemnity Agreements are to be construed in accordance with Mainland law and, properly interpreted, point to the Mainland court as the forum for disputes, such that Hong Kong proceedings should give way to the PRC proceedings (and the application to set aside the default judgment is justified on that basis).
3 Feb 2017

JUN FUNG v. TONG WAN SZE (also known as WILSON TONG) AND OTHERS

Citation

JUN FUNG v. TONG WAN SZE (also known as WILSON TONG) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1568/2016

The 2nd defendant failed to provide sufficient or credible reasons for default or evidence contradicting the plaintiff's case and did not show a real prospect of success; the default judgment was regularly obtained and therefore the application to set it aside was dismissed; the contractual jurisdiction clause and joint and several liability principles supported upholding the plaintiff's claim; costs awarded to plaintiff.
9 Jun 2015

MARMOR HOTAVLJE d.o.o. v. PETER SILLING & ASSOCIATES HOTEL INTERIOR DESIGN LTD

Citation

MARMOR HOTAVLJE d.o.o. v. PETER SILLING & ASSOCIATES HOTEL INTERIOR DESIGN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2475/2014

The jurisdiction clause specifying English law and 'jurisdiction London' was construed as a mandatory clause requiring proceedings to be brought in the English courts; there were strong factual connections to Germany/England and none to the United Kingdom from witnesses or the project location, and the Hong Kong company was effectively an adjunct of the German principal; accordingly the Hong Kong proceedings were stayed to be litigated in London.
8 Nov 2010

TSANG YUE JOYCE v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG YUE JOYCE v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2488/2009

Plaintiff's pleaded loss was loss of Ideal and the Trust; she acted as attorney for Ideal so any cause of action belongs to Ideal/the trustee. No pleaded collateral contract to give her a personal cause of action. Plaintiff lacked standing and failed to show any applicable exception permitting a direct or double derivative action; the proper remedy is an administration action in the Cayman Islands to compel the trustee to sue. Accordingly the amended statement of claim was plainly unsustainable and was struck out and the action against the 1st defendant dismissed.
10 Mar 2009

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA665/2009

Because the Defendant was outside the jurisdiction, unwilling to submit to Hong Kong proceedings, and there was a real risk that assets would be removed to frustrate enforcement of any judgment, the court was satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction was met and therefore granted a freezing order while discharging earlier injunctions.