Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction challenge

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2024

BANK A v. BANK B

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT16/2024

The arbitration clause in the TSA is valid and covers the disputes; Article 19 Basic Law does not apply because no question of fact concerning an act of state arises; the defendant failed to show strong reasons (futility, public policy or inability to have a fair trial) to refuse enforcement of the arbitration agreement; accordingly final and mandatory injunctions and declaratory relief to restrain the Russian proceedings and their enforcement were granted.
22 Mar 2024

CHEN PEI XIONG v. CONVOY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP211/2024

The court granted the interim order permitting the plaintiff to issue a protective writ on behalf of FIL on condition that the writ not be served on the proposed defendant absent further leave, reasoning that this preserves the plaintiff's rights pending substantive determination, causes no unfair prejudice because the writ remains unserved and may simply expire or be set aside if leave is refused, and defendants retain all substantive defences including limitation at the substantive hearing.
4 Nov 2022

朱 v. 劉

Citation

[2022] HKFC 223
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8529/2021

On the balance of probabilities the Respondent was domiciled in Canada as at the date of the petition and the Petitioner failed to prove that either party had a sufficient substantial connection with Hong Kong under s.3(c) MCO; accordingly the Hong Kong courts lacked jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed. Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the Luohu Court in the PRC is the more appropriate forum for the disputes; the PRC ruling filed post‑hearing was admitted but did not alter the conclusion. The MPS summons is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs ordered to foll…
18 Jul 2018

BAOSTEEL ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO LTD v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1678
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2018

A temporary stay of enforcement was granted only on the condition that CZ provide full security in Hong Kong (payment into court of RMB 19,818,046 or an acceptable bank guarantee within 14 days); ongoing and unliquidated Mainland proceedings, and a third party's alleged cross‑claim, do not by themselves justify delaying enforcement where the judgment creditor would be unfairly prejudiced and adequate security can be provided.
6 Jan 2017

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2016

Li's draft affirmation was non‑compliant with Order 41 rule 5(1) (largely hearsay, not within deponent's knowledge), irrelevant to the specific tasks of a contempt inquiry, and was filed in breach of an unless order without any application for relief under Order 2 rule 5; Yao's report was filed in breach of the unless order, was not independent, presented factual matter inappropriate for an expert and did not address the court's task in contempt proceedings (construction of orders, compliance and state of mind); accordingly both documents were struck out and expunged and costs were awarded to…
14 Mar 2016

T v. C

Citation

T v. C
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT23/2015

C failed to adduce sufficient or cogent evidence to meet the high threshold required to resist enforcement on public policy/fraud grounds; the Tribunal and the Malaysian supervisory court had considered and rejected the forgery allegations; the public policy ground is narrow; the summons was procedurally defective; accordingly enforcement would not be contrary to public policy and the application to set aside was dismissed.
14 Oct 2008

RE DYNASTY LINE LTD

Citation

RE DYNASTY LINE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW382/2007

The petition is adjourned sine die because the pending Court of Appeal appeal on jurisdiction is likely to determine whether any asset exists within the jurisdiction to benefit creditors; given minimal prejudice, the defunct status of the company and that investigations can continue, the proper course is to await the appeal.
28 Feb 2008

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "KINGDOM CONTAINER"

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "KINGDOM CONTAINER"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ151/2003

The judge found the case exceptional and that the plaintiffs' costs as stated in the Statement of Costs were reasonable and justified; accordingly the full amount of $1,101,971.60 was allowed and ordered to be divided equally among the three actions (one-third each).
28 Feb 2008

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "LIBERTY CONTAINER"

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "LIBERTY CONTAINER"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ153/2003

Because the proceedings were exceptionally difficult and complex, the plaintiffs' claimed disbursements and profit costs were reasonable, adequately evidenced and not padded, and the majority of work related to a single, dominant liquidation issue, the court allowed the plaintiffs' Statement of Costs in full and approved dividing the total sum equally among the three actions.
28 Feb 2008

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "CONVENIENCE CONTAINER"

Citation

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "CONVENIENCE CONTAINER"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ150/2003

The judge allowed the plaintiffs' Statement of Costs in full because the case was exceptional, the costs were reasonable and not padded, and approved dividing the total sum of $1,101,971.60 equally between the three actions (one-third each).