Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay pending foreign proceedings

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2022

PERPETUAL TRUST LTD (as Administrator of the Estate of ALEXANDER GAVIN BROWN) v. KOBE INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2762
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1353/2021

The writ and statement of claim were struck out and the action dismissed because the Plaintiff, as a New Zealand administrator, had not obtained resealing of the NZ Letters of Administration in Hong Kong and therefore lacked the legal capacity to sue in Hong Kong on behalf of the estate; proceedings commenced in that capacity were a nullity (binding precedent: Lam Sik Ying and Ingall v Moran). Costs ordered against the Plaintiff personally.
25 Nov 2019

SIGNATURE DIAMOND LLC v. PHILLIPS FINE WATCHES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2903
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1536/2017

The summons to lift the stay was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any genuine material change in circumstances since the stay was ordered; there was no cogent evidence of risk to the watches or other new facts justifying lifting the stay, and therefore the discretionary stay should remain in force; costs ordered to respondent at HKD225,000 with certificate for counsel.
10 Mar 2015

VH nee N v. YH AND ANOTHER

Citation

VH nee N v. YH AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1075/2013

The judge exercised the broad interlocutory costs discretion, finding the wife acted unreasonably and engaged in material non-disclosure and aggressive litigation including parallel proceedings; accordingly costs of the injunction proceedings are to the husband in any event (taxed party and party if not agreed) and the wife must pay 50% of the husband's costs of the 23 July 2013 summons, all payable at the conclusion of ancillary relief proceedings.
5 Nov 2013

CHINA AGRI PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA AGRI PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1807/2011

The judge refused to set aside the leave to serve out of jurisdiction or the overseas service because any non-disclosure of the PRC proceedings did not meet the threshold of materiality that would have affected the ex parte decisions and was not deliberate or serious; Hong Kong was the appropriate forum given the SPAs' non-exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clauses and absence of exceptional circumstances to displace them; the defendants were not permitted to re-open challenge to the Service Order without a proper cross-appeal; the interim stay was unjustified because the PRC proceedings would…
21 Mar 2012

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V. AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS

Citation

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V. AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2010

The court granted a stay of the Hong Kong setting aside proceedings because the pivotal issue (whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to join non-signatories) must be determined under Singapore law and is therefore appropriately decided first by the Singapore court (seat of arbitration), and ordered the garnishee AAL to pay into court the admitted US$44 million debt when due to secure the fund pending resolution; costs reserved with an order that costs occasioned by adjournment be borne by First Media and AAL to be taxed and paid after final determination.
22 Dec 1995

LA CHEMISE LACOSTE S.A. v. CROCODILE GARMENTS LIMITED

Citation

LA CHEMISE LACOSTE S.A. v. CROCODILE GARMENTS LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2401/1995

The PRC Trademark Office will decide registrability under PRC law but will not determine whether the defendant breached the Hong Kong settlement agreement; the Hong Kong court must interpret the agreement under Hong Kong law and decide breach; because the issues are not identical and the PRC tribunal will not decide the contractual breach, a stay is not warranted and the defendant's application is dismissed.
21 Jul 1986

HONG KONG SHANGHAI (SHIPPING) LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OF VESSEL "EVERGRAND" (Panamanian Flag) AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG SHANGHAI (SHIPPING) LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OF VESSEL "EVERGRAND" (Panamanian Flag) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ110/1986

The 7 October 1980 loan agreement was not a money-lending contract within the ambit of the 1911 Money Lenders Ordinance because (1) HSS was not carrying on money-lending business in Hong Kong through WSS and the lending/repayment occurred in New York/Bahamas, so the proper law and closest connections were foreign, and (2) HSS fell within the banking/establishment exemption; accordingly the Ordinance did not override the parties' express choice of English law. Therefore arrests were not set aside for non-disclosure, vessels were not released, issues of outstanding indebtedness should be determ…

Hong Kong Case Law

PERPETUAL TRUST LTD (as Administrator of the Estate of ALEXANDER GAVIN BROWN) v. KOBE INVESTMENTS LTD

SIGNATURE DIAMOND LLC v. PHILLIPS FINE WATCHES LTD

VH nee N v. YH AND ANOTHER

CHINA AGRI PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V. AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS

LA CHEMISE LACOSTE S.A. v. CROCODILE GARMENTS LIMITED

HONG KONG SHANGHAI (SHIPPING) LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OF VESSEL "EVERGRAND" (Panamanian Flag) AND ANOTHER