 was recently invited to lead a session at the Hong Kong Common Law & Dispute Resolution Practical Training Course in Xi’an – a leading city in the “One Belt, One Road” initiative.

Co-organised by the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy and Shannxi Province Lawyers Association and bringing together 80 legal professionals from across Mainland China, the course introduced practical and operational aspects of the Hong Kong common law system and international arbitration.

During his presentation, Jonathan discussed the rules of evidence in Hong Kong and common law advocacy skills, and delivered an interactive demonstration with the audience on examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses.

Special thanks to the Hong Kong International Legal Talents Training Academy for the invitation and Shannxi Province Lawyers Association for their hospitality and arrangement throughout the event.

Re New Bright International Development Ltd 

[2025] HKCFI 2351, following an 8-day trial of preliminary issue, DHCJ MC Law SC found that the Petitioner had failed to prove the existence of an alleged “co-operation agreement” purportedly reached orally between herself and her business partner, Sam Pa.

No fewer than 10 sets of proceedings were commenced in relation to a fight for control over New Bright International Development Ltd and its subsidiaries, which operate a diverse portfolio of businesses, including oil and gas exploration, mining, cement plants, infrastructure, aircraft, and property development. The Petitioner alleged that she had reached an oral agreement with Sam Pa, entitling her to equal participation in the management of the company despite being a minority shareholder. The existence of this agreement was the central dispute of almost all proceedings between the parties. The related proceedings were thus stayed pending the determination of whether the alleged agreement existed.

The Court found no such agreement. This was due to the lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence, the inherent improbabilities of such a significant agreement being undocumented, and the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the Petitioner’s evidence.

It was further held that even if the agreement existed, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate why, as a matter of law, it would be binding on the 1

 Respondent, the majority shareholder and director of the company. The Petitioner’s pleaded case was that Sam Pa entered into the alleged agreement for and on behalf of the 1

 Respondent. It was thus incumbent on the Petitioner to make clear whether she was pleading a case of actual, implied or apparent authority, and if apparent authority was relied on, to plead facts which showed a “holding out” by the principal that the agent has the authority to enter into the agreement on its behalf. She did not do so. As the Petition was silent as to the basis upon which Sam Pa had allegedly entered into the agreement on behalf of the 1

 Respondent, and there being no evidence to establish that Sam Pa had the authority to act on her behalf, the Court held that the alleged agreement, if existed, would not have been binding on the 1

, instructed by Dentons Hong Kong LLP, acted for the 1

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

No Paper Trail, No Deal: High Court Rejects Alleged Oral Agreement between Business Partners

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Enhancing Common Law Understanding and Advocacy Skills in Xi’an

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New