Beijing Renji Real Estate Development Group Co., Ltd v Zhu

 Min [2024] HKCA 878, the Court of Appeal examined the novel question of whether there was a “choice of Mainland court agreement” under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 597) ("

") if the choice of Mainland court clause was not expressly found in the contract but applicable only by operation of Mainland statutory law.

The Plaintiff entered into a Partnership Agreement with Hainan Zhongtou. The Defendant (director of Hainan Zhongtou) and Hangzhou Cybernaut issued the Guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff to guarantee Hainan Zhongtou’s obligation under the Partnership Agreement. Clause 90 of the Partnership Agreement was a choice of Mainland courts clause, but the Guarantee does not contain such a clause.

The Plaintiff commenced proceedings in Beijing. In a judgment by the Beijing Higher People’s Court (the “

”), Hainan Zhongtou, the Defendant, and Hangzhou Cybernaut were held liable to the Plaintiff for over RMB 200 million.

The Plaintiff then applied to register the BHPC Judgment in Hong Kong under the MJREO. G Lam JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) set aside the registration order on the ground that there was no “choice of Mainland court agreement” in the Guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal for the following reasons:

, instructed by Jones Day, acted for the Defendant.

成员

加入天博

引述成员

关于最新判案书的更多文章

Court of Appeal Considers The Meaning of “Choice of Mainland Court Agreement” under The Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance

关于

成员

实习

最新动向