Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Juridical advantage

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2022

PUSAN NEWPORT CO., LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS “MILANO BRIDGE” AND “CMA CGM MUSCA” AND “CMA CGM HYDRA”

Citation

[2022] HKCA 157
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV496/2021

Although the judge erred in characterising the plaintiff's choice of Hong Kong as forum shopping at Stage 2, on a fresh discretionary balancing the Court of Appeal held that South Korea is the natural and clearly more appropriate forum and that substantial justice will be done there despite the lower Panamanian/Korean tonnage limit; therefore the stay in favour of South Korea is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Apr 2020

CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3272/2016

Leave to appeal refused because the judge correctly applied the substance test and Spiliada balancing to conclude the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong, there is no realistic prospect that a novel contention (displacing Hong Kong law by reference to the governing contract or foreign public policy) would succeed, and no error of principle or material fact that justifies appellate intervention.
1 Apr 2020

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC (In Liquidation) v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA577/2015

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly applied the substance test and related authorities, concluded the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law, found no legal error or misdirection in the balancing exercise on forum non conveniens, and determined the defendants had no realistic prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal.
19 Jan 2015

HO MIU HA formerly t/a GREAT ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL CO v. LI YEE HUNG

Citation

HO MIU HA formerly t/a GREAT ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL CO v. LI YEE HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4193/2012

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the defendant did not show a reasonable prospect of success; the judge acted within judicial discretion and applied correct principles for lis alibi pendens, properly considered affidavit evidence (including acts not pleaded for the purposes of the stay application), correctly concluded the PRC and Hong Kong proceedings involved different subject matters (Agreement breach v employee duty), accepted the plaintiff had a legitimate purpose and juridical advantage in suing in Hong Kong and that enforcement issues could arise in the PRC, and…
17 Apr 2014

HOTEL PANORAMA CO LTD v. CHAN WAH CHIU ANTHONY

Citation

HOTEL PANORAMA CO LTD v. CHAN WAH CHIU ANTHONY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA496/2013

Defendant failed to discharge the Spiliada burden at stage one; the Employment Contract had the most real and substantial connection with Hong Kong, was governed by Hong Kong law, plaintiff's witnesses and documents were in Hong Kong, and the defendant did not show London was clearly and distinctly more appropriate; therefore the stay was refused.
4 May 2010

RI v. SSH

Citation

RI v. SSH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV261/2009

The Court dismissed the appeal: Hong Kong had a real and substantial connection to the matrimonial proceedings at commencement and the judge's refusal to stay was within proper judicial discretion and not plainly wrong; alternatively, even if France were the more appropriate forum, a stay would deprive the wife of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage (notably inclusion and claims for child D) and therefore should be refused.
19 Dec 2008

STANLEY HO AND ANOTHER v. WINNIE HO

Citation

STANLEY HO AND ANOTHER v. WINNIE HO
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV52/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because it was not reasonably arguable that the Court of Appeal reversed the burden of proof, misapprehended or omitted evidence, or miscarried its discretion; the Court of Appeal properly assessed the evidence as a whole and no arguable ground for interference was established.
17 Jun 2008

DUAN QI GUI v. UPPER LIKE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DUAN QI GUI v. UPPER LIKE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV320/2007

The court applied the Spiliada test, accepted that Hong Kong was not the natural forum but concluded the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in failing to commence Mainland proceedings given her detention, criminal proceedings and confiscation risks; the defendants' offered waiver of the limitation defence was uncertain as to effectiveness in Mainland courts; exercise of discretion to grant a stay was properly declined. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
22 Aug 2007

DUAN QI GUI v. UPPER LIKE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DUAN QI GUI v. UPPER LIKE INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1004/2005

Although Hong Kong was not the natural forum and the Mainland courts (Shanghai or Qingdao) were clearly more appropriate, the appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff established a real juridical disadvantage: Mainland limitation periods risked time‑barring her claim, she did not act unreasonably in failing to commence Mainland proceedings, and proposed waivers (unilateral or mutual) and conditional stay were insufficient or unreliable remedies; balancing favoured refusing the stay.