Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to serve out

Legal area

Court

15 Jun 2023

ALTRANS FAST CARGO LTD (AS ASSIGNEE OF LIFESTYLE LOGISTICS LTD) AND ANOTHER v. LIU YUGANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1873/2020

The ex parte leave dated 4 October 2021 was set aside because the plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case under the tort gateway (no significant damage or acts in Hong Kong), failed to show double actionability, the 1st plaintiff's claims are barred by the rule against reflective loss so there is no serious issue to be tried as to it, Hong Kong is not the appropriate forum, and the ex parte application involved material non-disclosure; costs were ordered against the plaintiffs.
1 Sept 2022

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LI HAILONG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2694
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA508/2021

The appeal was dismissed because the attempted service on the defendant's solicitors was rendered moot by valid service in Shanghai; the defendant failed to discharge the heavy burden required to displace the contractual Hong Kong forum and to show exceptional circumstances or material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; therefore the service out Order stands and the challenge to jurisdiction fails.
26 Jan 2022

MAYER HOLDINGS LTD v. XU LIDI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 275
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17/2022

Leave to serve the writ outside jurisdiction was refused because the plaintiff failed to show a good arguable case that the alleged oral Accountability Agreement was concluded in Hong Kong or that Hong Kong law was the law governing the contract by implication, and in any event Hong Kong was not clearly the appropriate forum given that the dispute centrally concerns PRC-incorporated companies and PRC company seals governed by PRC law and involving third-party minority shareholders and a PRC-governed Bamian Agreement; accordingly the Court declined to exercise discretion to allow service out a…
21 Sept 2021

XU YING v. XU WEIHONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1416
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV421/2021

Court allowed the appeal and exercised the discretion afresh: there is a good arguable case that a real and substantial tort of defamation occurred in Hong Kong (publication to LOCPG and resultant presumed reputational harm), so leave to serve out is granted on the defamation claim and associated injunctive relief (Gateways F and B); the malicious falsehood claim fails to show a good arguable case under s.24 (no pleaded particulars of probable pecuniary loss) and leave is not granted for that head; earlier finding of material non-disclosure was incorrect and does not prevent re-granting leave…
26 Mar 2021

BEDAT & CO (HK) LTD v. AKSTROM IMPORTS INC

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1274/2019

The appeal is dismissed because the defendant failed to prove material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage; disputed facts about the 2013 Note and its jurisdiction clause could not be resolved on the affidavits and therefore did not establish a duty-breaching omission, and the defendant failed to show Hong Kong was an inappropriate forum or that Quebec was clearly more appropriate, so no stay was warranted.
25 Oct 2019

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

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2631
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA577/2015

On the interlocutory materials the plaintiffs established a good arguable case that PW LLP carried on business in Hong Kong (so Order 81 applied), that the alleged negligent misstatements/advice were in substance committed and relied upon in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law, and that defendants failed to show New York was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum; accordingly the defendants' applications to set aside service and for a stay were dismissed and the plaintiffs' curative applications were unnecessary (though would have been granted if required).
31 May 2016

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA381/2015

The court exercised its discretion to apportion costs: finding some disapproval of the plaintiff's conduct but not material non-disclosure warranting full adverse costs, the court ordered that 60% of the costs of the setting aside application (including the costs of the variation application) be paid forthwith by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff and be taxed if not agreed.
24 Oct 2008

GDH LTD v. CREDITOR CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GDH LTD v. CREDITOR CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1462/2006

The court held the counterclaims against the French Banks were wholly unarguable: on true construction clause 10.1(c) and Schedule 14 allowed creditors the choice whether to submit a proof of claim and provided for transfer of unsubmitted Restructuring Consideration to GDH; CreditorCo could not validly imply duties of good faith or reasonable endeavours that contradicted express terms; the conspiracy claim collapsed with the contractual claim; accordingly the ex parte leave to serve out was set aside and service out of jurisdiction was vacated.
13 Mar 2008

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV73/2007

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to show the proposed appeal raised questions of law of great general or public importance; the contested issues were discretionary and fact-specific and therefore did not meet the exceptional criteria for an interlocutory appeal under the CSAV authority.
14 Nov 2007

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV369/2006

The Court refused leave to appeal because each ground lacked sufficient merit: established authority governed re-grant principles and did not support the applicant; the undertaking not to pursue Taiwan proceedings while Hong Kong proceedings were on foot was appropriate to prevent harassment; the Court of First Instance properly exercised its forum conveniens discretion; pleadings disclosed a serious issue to be tried against the relevant defendant; and questions about Taiwan service did not warrant further appeal as they would only delay the proceedings and require re-service. Therefore leav…