Commercial Court hands down judgment in Hong Kong service dispute

On 20 November 2024, Sue Prevezer KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) handed down judgment in Columbia Pictures Corporation Ltd v Wanda Kids Cultural Development Co Ltd. Columbia Pictures had attempted to serve Wanda by having a clerk from the Hong Kong office of its solicitors leave the documents (by hand) at Wanda’s registered office in Hong Kong. Wanda subsequently applied for an order seeking a declaration that this service was not valid, on the basis that this was not a permitted method for the service of foreign process under the domestic law of Hong Kong.

China (including the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong) is, like the UK, party to the Hague Service Convention 1965. The primary method of service under the Convention is for the serving party to send the claim form to the ‘Central Authority’ in a foreign country for the Central Authority to effect service. It was common ground that (a) where the Convention is applicable, service must be effected in accordance with its provisions and (b) the only provision in Hong Kong law that expressly provided for the service of foreign process was Order 69 of the Rules of High Court, which referred to written requests for service being received by the Central Authority. Wanda argued, therefore, that service by Hong Kong’s Central Authority was the only means of service of foreign process provided for under domestic law. Therefore, service had not been properly effected when Columbia Pictures left the process at Wanda’s office in Hong Kong.

For its part, Columbia Pictures contended that whilst the primary method of service between Hague Convention states is through a Central Authority, the Convention provides for alternative methods of service, including direct service by a person interested in judicial proceedings. Hong Kong had made no official objection to such method of service, nor, as a matter of construction, did Order 69 make service through the Central Authority mandatory. Leaving documents at a company’s office was therefore a permitted method for effecting service of foreign process under the law of Hong Kong (as it was for domestic process). In a judgment that will be of interest to conflicts of law practitioners, the Court accepted Columbia Pictures’ submissions, and the application was dismissed.

Tamara Oppenheimer KC and Kit Holliday acted for Columbia Pictures, instructed by Dan Bodle of Dentons UK and Middle East LLP. The judgment is available here.