Hong Kong: Court of Final Appeal clarifies the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause on bankruptcy petitions

In brief

The Court of Final Appeal (CFA), in its recent judgment in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 (link to judgment), has ruled on the proper approach towards a bankruptcy petition where the underlying dispute of the petition debt is subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC).

In essence, the CFA affirmed the majority decision of the Court of Appeal (CA). It held that where the underlying dispute of the petition debt is subject to an EJC, the court should generally hold the parties to their contractual bargain and dismiss the petition, unless there are strong countervailing factors that point otherwise.


Key Takeaways

The CFA’s approach highlights the importance of party autonomy and the heavy weight that courts will generally place upon the contractual terms between the parties.

This serves as a reminder that businesses should pay close attention to the dispute resolution clauses in their agreements, particularly those pertaining to jurisdiction, governing law and method of dispute resolution.

We expect Hong Kong courts to take a similar approach towards winding up petitions against companies. 


Practical considerations

Businesses should bear in mind the following when reviewing dispute resolution clauses:

  1. Pay attention to the language and consider the suitability of both the substantive and procedural aspects of the designated forum and governing law.
  1. Seek legal advice on the implications of litigation versus arbitration, exclusive versus non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, etc.
  2. Never underestimate the risk of having to take enforcement action against the other counterparties. Where possible, conduct proper due diligence as to their operations, assets, creditors, risk of default, etc., before you contract with them. Consider how to shape dispute resolution clauses to help mitigate your risks and maximize your leverage over counterparties.


In more detail

Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam

Background facts

Pursuant to a Credit and Guaranty Agreement ("Agreement"), the Appellant, as lender ("Creditor"), advanced term loans to a company controlled by the Respondent ("Debtor"), who acted as a guarantor to these loans. The Agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of New York courts, which covered "all legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this [Agreement] or the other [loan documents] or the transactions contemplated".

The Creditor served a statutory demand on the Debtor, requiring him to pay the outstanding principal and interest. It then presented a bankruptcy petition as the Debtor did not comply.

While the bankruptcy petition was pending, the Debtor commenced court proceedings in New York against the Creditor, seeking a declaration that there had been no event of default under the Agreement. The Debtor then opposed the petition in Hong Kong by arguing, among other things, that the Creditor should be required to litigate the dispute in New York before coming to Hong Kong to invoke the bankruptcy regime. 

Court of First Instance (CFI)

The CFI rejected the Debtor’s arguments and held that the established approach is to ask whether the debtor has demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial ground in respect of the debt ("Threshold Question").

The CFI held that the existence of an arbitration clause or an EJC is only a factor to be taken into account by the court when considering a winding up / bankruptcy petition.

The CFI held that there was no bona fide dispute on the facts and granted the bankruptcy order.

Court of Appeal (CA)

The Debtor appealed on the ground that the CFI should have dismissed or stayed the petition, as the petition debt was disputed and subject to the EJC and proceedings had been commenced in New York.  

The three CA judges unanimously agreed, but for different reasons, that the bankruptcy order should be set aside. The majority of the CA held that the court should give effect to the EJC and dismiss the petition, unless strong cause for not doing so is shown.

Court of Final Appeal (CFA)

The CFA unanimously dismissed the appeal and endorsed the CA’s majority approach. The key takeaways are as follows:

  1. Where the underlying dispute of the petition debt is subject to an EJC, the court should generally dismiss the petition and hold the parties to their contract, unless there are countervailing factors (e.g., the risk of insolvency affecting third parties, a frivolous defence, or an abuse of process).
  1. The CFI’s bankruptcy jurisdiction, conferred by statute, cannot be excluded by contract. If the parties agree to refer their disputes to a foreign court, this will only inform the CFI’s discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction, but not oust its jurisdiction.
  1. The CFI might exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction in certain cases (e.g., where the dispute in a particular action was covered by an arbitration agreement or an EJC).
  1. The determination of the Threshold Question is an exercise of the court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction.  The court could choose not to exercise its jurisdiction and refrain from determining the Threshold Question in, for example, a case where the parties have agreed to have their disputes resolved exclusively in another forum.
  1. The CFA noted the public policy considerations that were at play (e.g., upholding the legislative scheme for the bankruptcy jurisdiction, holding parties to their contract) and outlined some of the possible considerations (e.g., whether there was any evidence of a creditor community at risk).


Concluding remarks

This case illustrates the importance of having a dispute resolution mechanism that adequately addresses the circumstances and risks at hand, as it is clear from the CFA’s reasoning that parties will generally have to adhere to what the contract requires of them. This development may, however, encourage debtors to rely on an EJC to stall bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. Whilst some may attempt to use contractual means to mitigate such risks and allow for greater flexibility, such as by opting for a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, doing so may create other uncertainties, including the risk of having to face proceedings in unintended jurisdictions.

Contact Information

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.