14 Feb 2025
Service on 12/5/2023 was effected on the defendant while physically present in Hong Kong making jurisdiction proper; the defendant failed to follow required procedural steps to challenge jurisdiction or admit fresh evidence; therefore the asserted grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was denied.
4 Dec 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because ICBC failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of appeal: there was no clear good arguable case of foreign illegality or real prejudice sufficient to warrant a stay; lis alibi pendens did not apply absent such a foreign illegality finding; the proposed fresh evidence would not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria; and there was no justification for further delay in the action, so an unless order requiring filing of a Defence was appropriate.
21 Oct 2024
Balancing the relevant factors the court concluded the defendant failed to show the Guiyang Court is clearly or distinctly more appropriate: CTBC has an independent entitlement to sue in Hong Kong under UCP 600, the Mainland proceedings do not necessarily determine CTBC's rights (limited participation and potential absence of res judicata), foreign illegality was not a good arguable case given factual uncertainties, and witness/documentary convenience did not displace Hong Kong as an appropriate forum; accordingly the stay was refused.
21 Jun 2023
The court refused all applications to stay the Hong Kong proceedings in favour of the BVI: Hong Kong is the appropriate forum given the locus of the alleged trust, witnesses, bank accounts and management; the plaintiff established a good arguable case and serious issue to be tried under Order 11 gateways (b),(c),(p); the defendants failed to show the BVI is clearly or distinctly more appropriate; the new evidence applications (Mak 4th, Mak 5th, Muir 9th) failed Ladd v Marshall criteria and were refused; evidence of Mr Muir purporting to state BVI law was given no weight as impermissible exper…
3 Nov 2022
The defendants failed to discharge the high burden to show Hong Kong was not the natural forum and that the GZ Court was clearly or distinctly more appropriate; GZ 2153 is not a true lis alibi pendens because parties and issues are not the same and the defendants did not explain why Hong Kong lacked the most real and substantial connection given Hong Kong plaintiffs, Hong Kong-resident defendants and payments made in Hong Kong; consequently the stay application was dismissed.
26 May 2022
The court refused leave to appeal and held that although Hong Kong's higher tonnage limitation is a legitimate juridical advantage, on a full Spiliada Stage 3 balancing of advantages and disadvantages (including connecting factors and other circumstances) substantial justice would be done in the clearly more appropriate forum (South Korea), and accordingly the stay should be maintained; the application to refer questions to the CFA was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.
3 May 2022
The appeal was dismissed: no stay for lis alibi pendens because the asymmetric jurisdiction clause gave the plaintiff a legitimate right to sue in the PRC as well as Hong Kong and a stay would prejudice enforcement; service of the writ complied with the Guarantee’s process agent clause and RHC O.10 r.3 because the defendant failed to prove the contractual Hong Kong address had ceased to be valid; and the defendant failed to establish a meritorious defence by estoppel by convention due to lack of clear credible evidence.
7 Apr 2022
Defendant's renewed application to re-litigate and/or for an extension of time is dismissed because there is no significant change of circumstances warranting reopening the stay issue after submission to jurisdiction; lis alibi pendens and plaintiff's subsequent participation in SMC did not alter the Spiliada Stage 1 analysis nor justify a stay; on the merits the defendant failed to show SMC is clearly or distinctly more appropriate and Hong Kong's higher limitation regime represents a legitimate juridical advantage; accordingly the summons is dismissed and no extension of time or stay is gra…
18 Feb 2022
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.
18 Feb 2022
The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the stay to South Korea because, although the plaintiff would lose the higher Hong Kong tonnage limitation, on balance substantial justice would still be done in South Korea given the overwhelming connections of the dispute to Korea; the judge erred in treating the pursuit of a higher lawful limitation as per se improper forum shopping and the discretion was exercised afresh to find the balance favoured a stay.