Anti-Suit Injunction granted to restrain a Hong Kong party from continuing Beijing court proceedings

Parkside’s Derek J Y Chan, instructed by Tanner De Witt, acted for the successful Plaintiffs, China City Construction (International) Co., Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Dingway Investment Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation), both acting through their liquidators, in obtaining an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) to restrain China City Construction & Development Co., (HK) Limited from continuing proceedings (“the Beijing proceedings”) it had commenced in the People’s Court of Beijing Xicheng District (“the Beijing court”).

In the Judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Maria Yuen (formerly Yuen JA of the Court of Appeal) dated 14^th February 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 710):-

• The learned judge set out the general principles, stressing that (i) an ASI does not deny or pre-empt any jurisdiction of the “foreign court” (which the Beijing court is treated as under private international law principles in Hong Kong); (2) it is not an order directed at the foreign court; and (3) it is binding only on the individual or company who has commenced proceedings in the foreign court, who is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the domestic court.
• The learned judge held that it was not a legal prerequisite for the applicant to be a party to existing proceedings in Hong Kong to establish a legitimate interest for seeking an ASI. A party who can show that it would be bound by domestic proceedings would have a similar legitimate interest to protect against unconscionable conduct of the entity pursuing foreign proceedings, and to insist otherwise would be to elevate form over substance.
• The learned judge held that the fact that the applicants have not applied to the Beijing court to stay or terminate the Beijing proceedings first before issuing the ASI application is to be weighed in the balance, but was not decisive in the context of this case.
• The learned judge did not accept the submission that once proceedings had been brought in one jurisdiction pursuant to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause allowing a choice of two different jurisdictions, and a party had submitted to that jurisdiction, such party is precluded from resorting to the other jurisdiction as a matter of election. The court found that is unlikely to have been the intention of the parties that the party who was first to act in a dispute may in effect turn the jurisdiction it chose into an exclusive jurisdiction once the other party submitted to it.
• Having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances, the learned judge concluded that (1) Hong Kong is the natural forum, (2) CCCDHK’s conduct, in commencing the foreign proceedings based on a document of which it was or should have been aware a decade ago, carving out only one issue from multi-issue, multi-party proceedings in Hong Kong which have progressed for many years, having failed in its preliminary issue submission before the Hong Kong court, was vexatious and oppressive and unconscionable, and (3) with due regard to comity, the ends of justice require the grant of an ASI against CCCDHK.

The result in this case illustrates that where the circumstances justify, the Hong Kong court will not hesitate to grant an ASI to protect a party from vexatious and oppressive conduct despite the caution required in the interests of international comity.

The full judgment can be found here: China City Construction (International) Co Ltd v China City Construction & Development Co (HK) Ltd [2025] HKCFI 710 (https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=166363&currpage=T)