Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2026

V v. M

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT26/2025

The Set Aside Summons is dismissed because the respondent failed to prove any ground under s95 of the Arbitration Ordinance that would justify refusal of enforcement: the Shanghai supervisory court had dismissed the Mainland challenge, the Tribunal acted within its discretionary case-management powers and afforded a reasonable opportunity to present the case, no serious denial of natural justice or breach of agreed procedure or PRC law was shown, reasons in the award were adequate, and the public policy threshold for refusal was not met.
8 Mar 2024

AAD AND ANOTHER v. BBF

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2023

All orders for security were refused. A Hadkinson order was inappropriate because non-payment of civil debts did not constitute the type of contempt that impedes the course of justice here and because such an order would risk merely delaying resolution; AO s.86(4) was inapplicable as Hong Kong was both seat and enforcing court and no timely set-aside application had been made; RHC Order 73 r.10A must be exercised cautiously and the circumstances did not justify imposing substantial security or striking out the Anti-Recognition Application; security for costs was unjustified absent evidence of…
2 Dec 2022

A1 AND ANOTHER v. W1 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3637
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT14/2022

The court refused leave to appeal and upheld its order for security: the tribunal's awards concerned contractual restitution based on PRC tax authority determinations and did not directly deal with foreign revenue; the defendants failed to make frank disclosure of assets (notably recurring US$600,000 receipts and transfers) and the conduct of the 2nd defendant's controller created a real dissipation risk; the judge's exercise of discretion was within lawful bounds and not plainly wrong.
17 Oct 2022

A1 AND ANOTHER v. W1 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT14/2022

On preliminary consideration the Awards concern contractual commercial rights under the SPA and do not constitute a direct or indirect adjudication of PRC tax authority functions; the commercial reservation, arbitrability and public policy grounds did not apply at this stage; defendants had not been forthright about Hong Kong assets and payments (monthly US$600,000 transfers) raising a real risk of dissipation; accordingly security was required and ordered as a condition of adjourning enforcement proceedings.
12 Mar 2021

GOLONG CO., LTD v. SESDERMA, S.L.

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1646/2020

The Company has demonstrated a genuine and serious cross-claim on substantial grounds supported by evidence (including audited financial statements and particulars of the Defendant's failure to comply with the arbitral award and wrongful termination), sufficient to equal or exceed the Defendant's claimed debt after netting; accordingly presentation of a winding-up petition would be an abuse of process and a quia timet injunction is warranted.
24 Oct 2019

WANG PEIJI v. WEI ZHIYONG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP571/2019

The court held that under a plain reading of s.4(1)(c) of the Ordinance and established authority (Agromet), the cause of action to enforce the Award in Hong Kong accrued when SCG breached its payment obligation under the Award; consequently CL's enforcement application was time-barred after the six-year limitation period expired.
12 Sept 2018

U v. S

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2086
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT1/2018

Because the respondent demonstrated realistic prospects of success in its Mainland set aside proceedings (notably on non bis in idem and related due process issues) and there was no risk of frustrating enforcement given available Hong Kong assets, the court exercised its discretion to adjourn the Hong Kong setting aside/enforcement proceedings for six months but required the respondent to pay US$2,000,000 into court within 28 days as security, with default resulting in dismissal of the setting aside application.
23 Feb 2017

U v. A AND OTHERS

Citation

U v. A AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT34/2016

The court held the respondents were afforded a fair hearing despite the arbitrator declining to admit the Fuzhou judgment; the tribunal's determination that the PAC and addenda were effective and that the claim to appoint the chairman fell within the scope of the reference was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction and not reviewable on enforcement; enforcement would not offend Hong Kong public policy and it would not be just to refuse enforcement on grounds based on PRC law or forum non conveniens; material non-disclosure and payment arguments did not vitiate the ex parte leave to enforce.
16 Jun 2006

LAFARGE S.A. AND OTHERS v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAFARGE S.A. AND OTHERS v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT33/2006

The court continued the Mareva injunction, granted the prohibition order against the 2nd Defendant and ordered debtor examination because there was no convincing material non-disclosure, it was not an abuse to seek enforcement in Hong Kong where the award has been made enforceable as a Hong Kong judgment, comity supports maximising assistance to enforce international arbitral awards, there was evidence of a real risk of dissipation and the medical evidence did not justify refusing detention, and an ancillary prohibition was necessary to prevent the defendant leaving the jurisdiction and rende…
5 Aug 2002

KARAHA BODAS CO. LLC v. PERUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

KARAHA BODAS CO. LLC v. PERUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT28/2002

The court could not decisively determine Indonesian law on service from the evidence but, assuming non-compliance, the failure amounted to an irregularity not a nullity. On the balance of factors — KBC's genuine and diligent attempts to effect service, the documents reaching Pertamina's senior personnel, lack of prejudice to Pertamina, Pertamina's role in creating obstacles (including initiating annulment proceedings and contempt findings in Texas), and real risk re-service would be impeded by the Indonesian injunction — the court exercised its discretion under Order 2 r 1 to affirm and decla…