在终审法院最新颁布的 Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9突破性裁决中，终审法院驳回了该案的上诉，并且在判词中就专属管辖权条款（EJC）是否对提交破产呈请有影响这一棘手问题作出裁决，平息了长期对于相关议题的争论。
简而言之，终审法院认可上诉法院大多数法官对于本案的观点，认为一般来说，如果呈请债务的基础争议受制于专属管辖权条款，除非有其他反面因素存在（例如债务人破产的风险将会影响第三方、债务人的呈请以几乎无意义的争议为基础，或者发生滥用法律程序的情况等）， 则法院应驳回该破产呈请。
终审法院在裁定中指出，当只有一名债权人提出破产呈请，而没有证据表明全体债权人都面临风险时，破产制度背后的公共政策因素的重要性则显着降低。
这一裁定反映了法院非常重视当事人自治的原则，以及当事人之间自由达成的协议。该判决将会对破产领域产生深远的影响，以及对处理清算及破产呈请中的仲裁条款产生涟漪效应。
The Quincecare duty has become a popular tool for companies (or their liquidators) to claim against banks for funds misappropriated on wrongful payment instructions. It requires a bank to refrain from executing a payment order if and for so long as it was put on inquiry by having reasonable grounds for believing that the order was an attempt to misappropriate funds.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has confirmed that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions. To do otherwise, it said, it would be illogical.
On 30 August 2022, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's decision in the case of Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP and held that a creditor's bankruptcy petition presented in Hong Kong should not be allowed to proceed where the petitioned debt was disputed and arose from an agreement with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court.
On 14 June 2022, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA”) handed down a long-awaited and landmark judgement in Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited[2022] HKCFA 11, which would have significant implications to companies incorporated in offshore jurisdictions but listed in Hong Kong.
簡介
最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，終審法院推翻了原訟法庭及上訴法庭（「上訴庭」）的裁決。與上訴庭及原訟法庭的裁決相反，終審法院裁定，於新昌開始清盤後出售其在合營協議項下剩餘權利及權益的交易是無效的。
背景
新昌營造廠有限公司（「該公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）於2013年11月訂立一份合營協議（「合營協議」），以成立及經營一間合營公司（「合營公司」）。合營公司於2016年6月獲得一項大型政府項目合約，其中該公司佔65% 權益，Build King佔餘下35% 權益。
該公司於2017/2018年度開始面臨財政困難。2018年8月27日，該公司被入稟清盤，導致該公司的銀行帳戶被凍結。
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) overturned the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal (“CA”) below. The CFA found, contrary to the CA and Court of First Instance, that the disposition of Hsin Chong’s residual rights and interests under a joint venture agreement after the commencement of winding up was void.
Background
简介
最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，终审法院推翻了原讼法庭及上诉法庭（「上诉庭」）的裁决。与上诉庭及原讼法庭的裁决相反，终审法院裁定，于新昌开始清盘后出售其在合营协议项下剩余权利及权益的交易是无效的。
背景
新昌营造厂有限公司（「该公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）于2013年11月订立一份合营协议（「合营协议」），以成立及经营一间合营公司（「合营公司」）。合营公司于2016年6月获得一项大型政府项目合约，其中该公司占65% 权益，Build King占余下35% 权益。
该公司于2017/2018年度开始面临财政困难。2018年8月27日，该公司被入禀清盘，导致该公司的银行帐户被冻结。
In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).