← All Authorities
Hong Kong forum non conveniens

Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA v Heliswiss Ibérica

[2024] HKCFA 19
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2024
StatusBinding authority

Summary

CFA confirmed HK adopts the modified Re Harrods test for forum non conveniens, requiring identification of a distinctly more appropriate alternative forum before a stay is granted.

Key Principle

CFA confirmed Hong Kong adopts modified Re Harrods test for forum non conveniens/stay of proceedings. Distinctly more appropriate forum must be identified.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA v Heliswiss Ibérica and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Companhia de Seguros Tranquili...