Date of Decision: 4 May 2026

Coram: DHCJ Jonathan Wong

The Court dismissed applications (1) to stay reciprocal enforcement proceedings pending a retrial application in the PRC, and (2) to set aside the registration of a PRC judgment on the grounds that enforcement would be contrary to public policy. A mere application for retrial without any order granting a retrial does not justify a stay or setting aside of registration, as this would undermine the MJREO’s legislative objective of simple and expeditious enforcement of PRC judgments.

Date of Decision: 7 May 2026

Coram: Winnie Tsui J

The former liquidators of a company were held in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order to produce all documents belonging to the company. Their contention that it was impossible to review the voluminous documents was rejected, as it was incumbent on the liquidator to devise a suitable methodology for conducting document review. However, the Court also found on the evidence that the contempt was purged by the Defendants’ subsequent production and exercised its discretion to make no order on the committal application.

Date of Judgment: 21 May 2026

Coram: Hon Mimmie Chan J

This decision clarifies that the grounds available for challenging or setting aside a court order enforcing emergency relief under section 22B of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) are confined to the four corners of that section. Further, a party seeking to resist enforcement of emergency relief by challenging the existence of the arbitration agreement faces a high bar. The Court will only intervene where the absence of a valid arbitration agreement is beyond question.

Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026

Coram: Hon Kwan VP, Chu VP and Cheng J

The Court of Appeal affirmed the principle that a derivative action is not available where a company is in liquidation. Once a company enters liquidation, its court-supervised liquidator displaces the shareholders as the proper party to pursue corporate wrongs. A contributory’s remedies lie within the insolvency framework, not in a parallel derivative action. In the cross-border context, this principle may apply to direct the aggrieved parties to seek relevant directions from the appointing court.