Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay pending arbitration

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2024

RE PAUL CLEMENT TAM, Debtor

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4850/2023

The court found that the Debtor raised bona fide and substantial disputes on key issues — the construction of the Put Option (arguably defeated by the Sale of 3D Ltd as a Buyout) and the scope of the indemnity (supported by contemporaneous communications and draft hard copies) — and that estoppel by convention and waiver were not established on the evidence; accordingly the petition could not stand and was dismissed rather than stayed.
21 Apr 2023

FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. ISP HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as SYNERGIS HOLDINGS LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA245/2022

The court held that, on the wording and commercial context of these counter‑indemnities, no broader implied term of rationality limiting the plaintiff's contractual rights under Clauses 4 and 5 was necessary or appropriate; Clauses 4 and 5 provided contractual rights to demand deposits which were validly triggered on the facts, and summary judgment for the plaintiff was therefore appropriate.
13 Jan 2023

BEIJING SONGXIANGHU ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION ENGINEERING CO., LTD v. KITTY KAM also known as WANG YUZHI

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 159
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1289/2022

The court found the plaintiff established a good arguable case of fraud and proprietary claim, a real risk of dissipation given unknown whereabouts of large sums and defendant’s evasive conduct, and that the balance of convenience favored interim restraint and disclosure; accordingly the Mareva injunction was granted with specified modifications and expanded disclosure, and the stay application was dismissed.
31 Mar 2022

RE DAI YUMIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7582/2020

The statutory demand was validly served at the address stipulated in the settlement agreement and brought to the debtor's attention; arbitration clauses did not plainly or expressly cover independent rights to sue on the dishonoured cheques and therefore do not bar court proceedings; the debtor failed to adduce credible, substantial evidence of triable disputes (no reliable proof of a 2017 settlement, duress was unsubstantiated and was ratified by conduct, failure of consideration and mitigation claims fell away), accordingly there were no bona fide disputes preventing the grant of a bankrupt…
22 Nov 2021

CHINA EUROPE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL v. CHENGWEI EVERGREEN CAPITAL LP (formerly known as CHENGWEI VENTURES EVERGREEN FUND LP) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3513
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW12/2021

The Court held the substance of the disputes in the petition fall within the scope of the broad arbitration clauses in the 2007 Agreements; the Company had a sufficient interest to seek a stay; petitioner failed to discharge the burden to show why arbitration should not be enforced; undertakings from third parties removed prejudice concerns; accordingly the petition was stayed pending determination of the arbitration, with liberty to restore and costs ordered against petitioner.
21 May 2019

IPS INTERNATIONAL POLYSACKS GMBH v.INTERSACK HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1336
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW322/2018

The court exercised its power to stay the petitions in both HCCW 322/2018 and HCCW 323/2018 pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to the Notice of Arbitration dated 22 March 2019, and, having found no good reason to prevent service, permitted the petitioner to take reasonable steps to serve the 3rd respondent; costs of the summonses were ordered against the 2nd respondent.
27 Dec 2018

CHU KONG v. LAU WING YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 1010
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV105/2018

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause incorporated into the Supplemental Agreement is valid and covers the disputes; factual questions about the 3rd defendant's actual or apparent authority and the 4th defendant's knowledge make the disputes between the plaintiff/the Company and the 4th defendant substantive rather than nominal; and the plaintiff's potential locus difficulties in commencing arbitration derivatively do not render the arbitration agreement incapable of being performed; accordingly the mandatory stay under s20(1) must be granted and the action against the 4th defe…
4 Jun 2018

RE HONG KONG SPORTS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as “LeTV Sports Culture Develop (Hong Kong) Co Ltd”)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW66/2018

The court found no evidence of a bona fide defence on substantial grounds to the claim for at least US$12,905,000 and that the arbitration did not put that part of the debt in dispute; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to make the winding-up order and ordered costs of the supporting contributory to be paid out of the company's assets.
17 Aug 2017

GLORY EMPIRE GLOBAL LTD v. BATESON INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

GLORY EMPIRE GLOBAL LTD v. BATESON INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA866/2017

The strike out application was dismissed because the plaintiff established a real triable issue (notably potential waiver by the defendant) as to the validity of the Enforcement Notice; the court refused to stay the proceedings pending arbitration because only costs remained, arbitration was uncertain and might not resolve the costs question, and justice required a broad approach; on the existing materials it was impossible to say who would have prevailed so the court made no order as to costs and granted the plaintiff leave to discontinue.
25 Jun 2014

OTTO OFFSHORE LTD v. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS CO LTD

Citation

OTTO OFFSHORE LTD v. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1600/2013

The ex parte order was discharged for failure to make full and frank disclosure; the application for a stay was dismissed because the Guarantee expressly required payment on demand within 15 days despite an arbitration between other parties and the defendant had agreed to Hong Kong jurisdiction, so it would be unjust to stay the proceedings.