Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial comity

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2025

TENWOW INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. 普华永道中天会计师事务所(特殊普通合伙) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS ZHONG TIAN LLP

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 17
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV2/2025

The Court held that (1) the Hong Kong court has inherent jurisdiction to issue an outgoing letter of request to a Mainland court to secure production by a party of documents in that party’s possession which cannot be produced without Mainland approval, and (2) in the circumstances of this case a request to a Mainland court to facilitate regulatory approval for production of the audit working papers fell within the scope of Article 6 of the Mutual Arrangement; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jan 2020

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP632/2012

Court granted limited relief: restrained the Plaintiffs from representing that a subsisting Hong Kong injunction remained in force, and gave leave to the 1st Defendant to withdraw two specified undertakings (not to exercise rights in relation to his 2,900 shares and not to challenge the company chop); other reliefs were dismissed. The discharge was justified by material changes of circumstances (PRC litigation, litigation conduct and failure to comply with Lisa Wong J's order leading to risk to the subsidiary) and the balance of convenience to preserve the real fruit of the litigation, while…
14 Nov 2016

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2016

The Court held that s.21M relief is available where the foreign proceedings can produce a judgment enforceable in Hong Kong; the correct first-stage test is whether the foreign judgment would be enforceable and whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation (having regard to foreign court findings but making its own assessment); s.21M(4) permits refusal where granting relief would be unjust or inconvenient on comity or overlap grounds, but those grounds did not prevail here and Mareva relief should be reinstated in a reduced amount and remitted for assessment.
2 Feb 2016

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A. v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A. v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV33/2015

The Court granted leave to appeal because the proposed appeal raises questions of great general or public importance under section 21M(1) concerning the applicability and formulation of the Refco first stage test, the role of judicial comity and the relevance of Airbus Industrie in cases where Hong Kong is not the agreed forum, and the adequacy of undertakings; these issues warrant determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
12 Aug 2015

BEYONICS TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOH CHAN PENG AND OTHERS

Citation

BEYONICS TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOH CHAN PENG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2014

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the judge below erred by failing to give due weight to the Singapore court's decision to discharge its Mareva injunction and by not addressing whether a real risk of dissipation remained or whether it was unjust or inconvenient to maintain ancillary relief under s21M; accordingly the Hong Kong Mareva injunction was discharged and the discovery order for bankers' records was set aside as the Hong Kong court should defer to the primary Singapore court and there were no pending Hong Kong proceedings to sustain third-party discovery.
27 May 2015

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A. v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A. v. HIN-PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1449/2014

The court refused to strike out the originating summons at this stage because the Court of Appeal had not determined the merits, there was a pending leave application that could affect rights, no good reason was shown to seal or withhold effect of an order now, and striking out would unfairly shut out the plaintiff; the summons was therefore adjourned pending the outcome of the leave application with directions for affidavit exchange.
11 Mar 2015

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A v. HIN PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A v. HIN PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV243/2014

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the discharge of the Hin-Pro Mareva, Hin-Pro Receivership Order, Soar Mareva and Soar Receivership Order because (1) judicial conflicts between PRC final judgments and interim English proceedings meant, in light of s21M(4) and international comity, it was unjust or inconvenient for Hong Kong court to grant the relief; (2) the Mareva granted was pre-emptive and excessive (reflective damages beyond usual precedents) and exceeded what was necessary to protect the plaintiff given available undertakings; and (3) the receivership order contained overbroad p…
4 Mar 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2013

The Court refused leave to appeal because the questions advanced were principally fact‑specific, did not raise issues of great general or public importance suitable for the Court of Final Appeal, and existing legal principles (issue estoppel, distinction between derivative use and admissibility, scope of LPP and PSI) disposed of the matters on these facts; LPP issues between the Secretary for Justice and STL/others were remitted to the Court of First Instance and limited permission to use judgments for enforcement was granted.
21 Apr 2009

PRIMARIUS CAPITAL LLC AND OTHERS v. JAYHAWK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC AND OTHERS

Citation

PRIMARIUS CAPITAL LLC AND OTHERS v. JAYHAWK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1961/2008

The ex parte order was set aside because the Claimants failed to satisfy section 76(4) of the Evidence Ordinance: they did not demonstrate prima facie that the documents existed or were in the possession, custody or power of Mr Chen or Golden Meditech, and the requests were drafted as broad classes rather than particular documents and were not shown to be relevant to the US arbitration; therefore the Order constituted an impermissible fishing expedition and must be set aside; costs follow the event with an order nisi for costs.
15 Oct 2008

CASEY MCDONALD AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN DYNASTY ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CASEY MCDONALD AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN DYNASTY ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2388/2007

The court ordered directors to execute the prescribed board resolution and power of attorney (with specified drafting modifications) because such instruments do not reinstate directors' management powers, are consistent with the receivers' mandate under the BVI/Samoa/Hong Kong orders, are pragmatically necessary to enable effective preservation and control of assets in PRC subsidiaries where appointment orders alone may not be recognised, and can be tailored to avoid unlawful delegation, inappropriate indemnities or irrevocability beyond the court's control.