Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Juridical disadvantage

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2022

CHOW MAN v. WANG HONG CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1784
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP288/2022

The Court refused leave to serve the writ out of jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to show a good arguable case that the loans were to be performed in Hong Kong under Order 11 r1(1)(e) and failed to show that Hong Kong is clearly the appropriate forum; the judge correctly applied Komala Deccof and forum conveniens principles and there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
20 Jul 2022

周敏 v. 王洪春及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2151
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1458/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case that Gateway E applies: the Court could not find the necessary evidence that trading or repayment were conducted or to be performed in Hong Kong, there was insufficient evidence to imply an agreement for repayment in Hong Kong, the presumption of payment at the creditor's place did not assist the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to prove he would suffer a juridical disadvantage in Mainland China; accordingly the appeal lacked reasonable prospects and was not in the interests of justice.
10 Nov 2011

SA formerly known as SA v. SPH

Citation

SA formerly known as SA v. SPH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2011

Germany is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum to determine the validity of the Pre-nuptial and Separation Agreements and related issues. Although the wife would face a potential juridical disadvantage if Germany enforces the agreements, the disadvantage is mitigated because Hong Kong's Part IIA permits her, after conclusion of the German proceedings, to apply for additional financial relief if she can demonstrate substantial unfairness; accordingly the stay is granted in favour of Germany without prejudice to her Part IIA rights, which yields the least unjust overall result.
15 Mar 2005

PEREGRINE FIXED INCOME LTD (In Liquidation) v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

Citation

PEREGRINE FIXED INCOME LTD (In Liquidation) v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL2/2004

The court held that although the plaintiff’s point about the lateness of the defendant’s limitation undertaking was attractive, it did not wholly excuse the plaintiff’s resistance; however, because the defendant tactically allowed the time-bar issue to persist and only produced the undertaking when the stay application became difficult, the defendant cannot recover costs for the part of the hearing extended by that tactic. The order nisi was therefore varied to reduce the defendant’s recoverable costs accordingly and to direct priority payment from the plaintiff’s assets.
17 Jan 2000

ROYAL GARDEN RESORT PUBLIC CO. LTD. v. THE MITSUBISHI TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation

ROYAL GARDEN RESORT PUBLIC CO. LTD. v. THE MITSUBISHI TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6541/1999

Applying the Spiliada test the court found Thailand (or alternatively Japan) to be the natural and clearly more appropriate forum for the dispute; D1 satisfied stage 1 and stage 2 because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial juridical disadvantage from trial in Thailand, D1 gave an undertaking to submit to Thai jurisdiction which removed the principal service objection, and issues as to claims against Hong Kong defendants did not outweigh forum convenience. The Master's order was set aside and a stay granted as to the 1st defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHOW MAN v. WANG HONG CHUN AND ANOTHER

周敏 v. 王洪春及另一人

SA formerly known as SA v. SPH

PEREGRINE FIXED INCOME LTD (In Liquidation) v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

ROYAL GARDEN RESORT PUBLIC CO. LTD. v. THE MITSUBISHI TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION AND OTHERS