Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay to arbitration

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2025

HYALROUTE COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2417
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT155/2024

On proper construction of Clause 43.1 governed by Hong Kong law, the court must assess whether Cayman winding-up proceedings would be capable of 'finally resolving' the dispute; that assessment requires reference to Cayman law on finality/estoppel. Cayman law (as informed by Sian Participation and Re BPGIC) indicates winding-up proceedings do not finally determine the petition debt or create conclusive estoppel over substantive rights. Therefore the Defendant's presentation of Cayman winding-up proceedings would not breach Clause 43.1, the Plaintiff failed to show the high probability of succ…
24 Feb 2025

TECHTERYX LTD v. LEGACY TRUST COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 787
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1906/2023

The Court held there was a prima facie case that the plaintiff's claims against the 5th Defendant are intimately founded in and intertwined with the 4th Defendant's contractual obligations under the SAA and MSA such that, under Delaware law, agency and equitable estoppel permit the non‑signatory 5th Defendant to invoke the arbitration clauses. The arbitration agreements were valid and the disputes fell within their ambit; therefore under s20 of the Arbitration Ordinance the action must be stayed and referred to arbitration. The confidentiality complaint was unnecessary to decide the stay and…
8 Dec 2023

X-SPOT GLOBAL LTD v. HUOBI GLOBAL LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP36/2023

The court held that the plaintiff had made sufficient disclosure and established a good arguable case for service out under Order 11 rules 1(b) and (f); the plaintiff is not bound by the SPA arbitration clause (the Mark was expressly excluded from the SPA and the plaintiff is not a party to the SPA) and there was no plainly arguable case that the claims are subject to arbitration; accordingly the defendant's application to set aside the service out order and to stay to arbitration was dismissed and the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction was granted.
16 Feb 2023

LI WENJUN v. CHEN CHUNHUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2021

The court construed Clause 14.1 under PRC law as limited to disputes arising from a party's failure to perform contractual obligations and held tortious claims in this action fall outside the Clause; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the dispute is arbitrable under the Clause and, in any event, waived the right to arbitrate by conduct (defending on the merits, applying for and agreeing security for costs, and not objecting to the amendment), so the stay under s.20 was refused.
4 Nov 2022

YIP CHI WAN (suing by her attorney, LO CHI ON) LO CHI ON v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MERRY COURT, KOWLOON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1264
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6265/2020

s.20(1) Arbitration Ordinance operates independently of Order 12 rule 8; TP established a prima facie arbitration agreement in Clause 11.4 read in context and the court must refer the dispute to arbitration; consequently the third party proceedings were stayed and all further proceedings in respect of the defendant's claim against TP were referred to arbitration; costs ordered to TP on an indemnity basis.
16 Feb 2022

RE GOLDEN OASIS HEALTH LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 237
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV100/2020

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the Smart Even Deed expressly made the Smart Even Loan repayable on demand, so no reasonably arguable implied term in the Company SHA could restrict unilateral repayment (such an implied term would contradict the express deed); accordingly there was no bona fide dispute of substance to defeat the petition, and the Judge’s dismissal was set aside.
24 Jan 2022

MAK v. LA

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 285
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1967/2020

The Court found a prima facie valid and enforceable arbitration agreement in the 16/6/18 letter (and 3/5/19 letter) covering disputes arising out of or in connection with participation in the Scheme, including claims to vesting and redemption of Units awarded in 2016–2018; section 20 requires referral to arbitration where a prima facie arbitration agreement exists and no sufficient reason not to do so; there was no nullity or unconscionability established; therefore claims concerning the Deferred Shares were referred to arbitration and the remaining related claims (2019 discretionary bonus/qu…
27 Oct 2021

L v. M AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3206
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT6/2021

The court varied the costs order nisi and held that because the stay applied both to claims against the 2nd Defendant under the arbitration agreement and to claims against the 1st Defendant (who had no arbitration clause) and because the 1st Defendant's undertaking was produced late (which materially affected the litigation conduct), it was unjust to award the 2nd Defendant full indemnity costs; instead the 2nd Defendant was entitled to 50% of the costs of and incidental to the Summons, certificate for Counsel, on party and party basis, with the balance in the cause; costs of the variation ap…
20 Jan 2021

T v. W

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA366/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because the Defendant demonstrated more than fanciful prospects of success on an arguable and important point of law—namely whether CA Pacific's presumption should continue or be displaced by a one-stop approach—and the construction of the arbitration clause raised issues with merits sufficient to justify a Court of Appeal hearing; accordingly leave was appropriate under the reasonable prospect test and the interests of justice.
18 Nov 2020

T v. W

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2918
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA366/2020

Applying Hong Kong authority in CA Pacific, the court held the cheque is a separate contract from the Loan Agreement and there is no clear plain manifestation in the arbitration clause to include claims under the Cheque; the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the arbitration agreement covers the cheque claim, therefore the mandatory stay under section 20(1) was refused.