Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay in favour of arbitration

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

A v. B

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT125/2024

Defendant succeeded in obtaining a stay in favour of arbitration and established that the arbitration clause operated as written; Plaintiff's arguments that the clause was inoperative were unmeritorious and Plaintiff contested the summons up to the substantive hearing; absent special circumstances the established practice and authorities require awarding indemnity costs in such cases; accordingly the costs of and occasioned by the summons are to be paid by Plaintiff to Defendant on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
13 Jun 2025

A AND ANOTHER v. X

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1535/2024

The court found that there was no clear and unequivocal waiver by X: Y-1st responded to the original dispute which did not include negligence, negligence allegations were only introduced later (material change to the dispute), and the email did not evidence abandonment of the arbitration right. Consequently X was entitled to a stay under s.20 AO in respect of the new dispute and, insofar as necessary, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay all claims to avoid inefficient bifurcation. Costs were awarded to X on an indemnity basis and against A&B jointly and severally.
6 Nov 2024

JINGDONG E-COMMERCE (TRADE) HONG KONG CORPORATION LTD v. MAVIN ELECTRONS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3110
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1032/2023

Defendant established a prima facie case that the SPA arbitration clause (Clause 9.9) covers the present disputes so the court must stay proceedings in favour of arbitration; the 8/12/22 Agreement did not plainly and unequivocally waive the arbitration clause, the SPA clause is wide and the 8/12/22 Agreement expressly refers to the SPA and Supplemental Agreement, and questions about reliance on SPA clause 3.5 and set-off are appropriately for the tribunal to determine first.
23 Sept 2024

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF SHANGHAI HUAXIN GROUP (HONGKONG) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUAINAN MINING INDUSTRY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2542
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP180/2024

The Adjournment Summons was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave is final and non‑appealable, the stay in favour of arbitration was properly refused and should not be achieved by adjournment, the Respondent had adequate opportunity to file evidence under an unless order and did not justify additional leave, and on the facts the Deed was an undervalue transaction within s265D and accordingly is set aside.
30 Aug 2024

RE MAN CHUN SING MATTHEW

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2286
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3468/2023

The court declined to exercise its winding-up and bankruptcy jurisdiction and stayed both petitions pending resolution by the agreed HKIAC arbitration because the respondents' defences (including waiver/estoppel and lack of legally available funds) were neither frivolous nor an abuse of process, the respondents demonstrated a genuine intention to arbitrate, and there were no countervailing factors such as risk to the creditor community.
11 Dec 2023

楊佩玲 v. SUPER BEST INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3210
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1465/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the decision referring the parties to arbitration under s20(8) of the Arbitration Ordinance, the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the proposed grounds, and an application to stay the referral would constitute an impermissible backdoor attempt to circumvent the statutory bar on appeal.
17 Nov 2023

楊佩玲 v. SUPER BEST INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2998
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1465/2022

The court varied the Costs Order Nisi and ordered that 80% of the costs of and occasioned by the Summons on or after 2 February 2023 be paid to the Defendant, to be assessed summarily on an indemnity basis (certificate for one counsel), because the Defendant had met the applicable threshold on the stay/ arbitration issue and Plaintiff ought to have appreciated the merits from Au/Aff1 served 1 February 2023; Defendant to bear costs up to 1 February 2023 and Defendant to bear Plaintiff's costs for perusal of Au/Aff1; a 20% discount was applied to reflect set‑off and the perusal order.
29 Sept 2023

楊佩玲 v. SUPER BEST INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2494
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1465/2022

On the evidence the court was satisfied D established at least a prima facie and in fact a good prospect of success that the Supplemental Agreement (and its arbitration clause) binds P (including on agency/nominee grounds); accordingly the court was obliged to refer the dispute to arbitration and stay proceedings under s20, and the Default Judgment should be set aside; leave to file acknowledgement out of time was granted for 7 days.
3 Jul 2020

GEORGE CHU v. TAN GIONG SENG JOHNSON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 531
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP321/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the judge properly exercised his discretion under Order 2 rule 5 by finding no satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the Unless Order, that defendants had opportunities to comply or seek directions or a stay, and that his evaluation fell within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement.
25 Oct 2019

GEORGE CHU v. TAN GIONG SENG JOHNSON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2594
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2213/2018

Relief under RHC O.2 r.5 is refused because the Defendants intentionally failed to comply with the Unless Order, offered no adequate explanation for not preparing a Defence as a fallback to settlement efforts, have a poor compliance record, and granting relief would prejudice the Plaintiff and the administration of justice; therefore the Relief Summons is dismissed.