Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forum shopping

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2026

BEIJING SONGXIANGHU ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION ENGINEERING CO., LTD v. KITTY KAM also known as WANG YU ZHI

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2449
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1289/2022

The court held that both the English freezing injunction application and the Singapore discovery application (including the proposed joinder of D) breached the undertaking given in support of the Hong Kong Mareva relief. The Second Leave Order did not authorize obtaining a freezing injunction in England; the First Leave Order authorized discovery only against third parties and did not permit proceeding against D without further leave. Accordingly D was entitled to the relief sought in the Amended Summons to restrain those foreign proceedings.
24 Nov 2025

LIQUIDITY TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. MARK DAVID LAMB AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5658
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1646/2023

Leave to amend the SJ Summons was granted: the Additional Relief (claim for damages for improperly settling the arbitration) had been pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim, the Seychelles judgment handed down after the SJ Summons supported the amendment, the 1st Defendant failed to show the amendment was bound to fail or that real prejudice or mala fides existed, and any further evidence is to be limited and sequenced by court directions; costs and procedural directions were ordered accordingly.
31 Dec 2024

RE THE JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS OF GTI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1198
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP493/2022

The Court refused leave to appeal because there was no reasonable prospect of success: the judge's costs order was within discretion and properly grounded on the applicants' own confirmations and conduct (including forum shopping and inadequate/full and frank disclosure in ex parte and foreign proceedings), and Hong Kong courts may, consistent with the CWUO, refuse to allow recovery of liquidators' costs from Hong Kong assets where justified by conduct.
31 Dec 2024

RE THE JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS OF GTI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1198
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP534/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success: objectively the JOLs had put before the court that they would bear the costs and not recover them from the Company; their conduct in seeking recognition after a Hong Kong winding up involved misleading representations, non-disclosure and forum shopping; the Hong Kong court correctly exercised its broad discretion under domestic insolvency law to deprive them of recouping costs from Hong Kong assets.
19 Sept 2023

CHAN CHUN CHUEN v. KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA597/2015

It is not mandatory that the deputy High Court Judge Anson Wong SC or Coleman J hear the wasted costs application because each was involved only in a single interlocutory matter and neither conducted or tried the whole action; the summons may be listed before any judge and the statutory/practice direction requirements are to be applied with practical common sense rather than as an absolute bar.
22 Aug 2023

莊裕安 v. 馬道立 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL925/2023

The summons for change of presiding judges and appointment of an Amicus Curiae was dismissed because the objective test for apparent bias was not met: the fact the judge previously decided HCAL1264 against the applicant did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias, the prior decision was not determinative of the new applications, each application must be considered on its own merits, and there was no need for an Amicus; hearing four leave applications in one day was a legitimate case management decision.
22 Aug 2023

莊裕安 v. 梁啟彥 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL696/2023

The summons seeking change of presiding judge, appointment of an Amicus Curiae and re‑fixing of hearings is dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias or any necessity for an Amicus; the prior decision (HCAL 1264/2022) does not preclude the judge from bringing an open mind to the four applications; and hearing the four leave applications on a single day is a proper case management decision.
10 Nov 2022

RE GTI HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3430
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1556/2020

The JOLs had represented to the court that they would bear the costs of and occasioned by the Application and would not seek to recover such costs and their remuneration from the company's assets; the judge properly exercised her discretion in making the Costs Order on that basis and because the JOLs' conduct (including failures of full and frank disclosure and use of an ex parte Cayman mechanism) did not show any reasonable prospect of success on appeal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed and a costs order nisi made that the JOLs are not entitled to recover the…
10 Nov 2022

RE GTI HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3430
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW51/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the JOLs had, by written statements and oral submissions, represented they would bear and not seek to recover costs and remuneration from the company's assets, made no substantive opposition when the court raised concerns, failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on the grounds advanced (including full and frank disclosure and other alleged errors), and therefore the Costs Order was properly made and should stand.
19 Aug 2022

RE GTI HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW51/2020

The court found the JOLs/PLs made material misrepresentations and deliberate non‑disclosures to the Cayman and Hong Kong courts, engaged in forum shopping and acted inconsistently with their duties as officers of the court; accordingly the court refused to allow recovery of the JOLs’ remuneration and costs from the company’s assets and ordered the JOLs personally to pay the costs of the Official Receiver (HK$29,000) and to bear all costs and remuneration occasioned by the ex parte Application.