问题一的考察范围:

• 合同的法律选择 (Choice of law in contract)
  合同的法律适用选择
• 侵权的法律选择 (Choice of law in tort)
  侵权的法律适用
• 不方便法院原则 (Forum non conveniens)
• 管辖权条款 (Jurisdiction clauses)
• 禁诉令 (Anti-suit injunctions)

Choice of Law  法律适用选择

Choice of Law in Contract (C4 & C5)
合同中的法律适用（C4 & C5）

• First Principle: Party Autonomy: The parties to a contract can, by express or implied choice, select the "proper law" of the contract. This choice must be bona fide and not contrary to public policy.
  第一原则：当事人自治：合同当事人可以通过明示或默示选择合同的“适用法律”。该选择必须是真诚的，且不得违反公共政策。

• Check for a Choice of Law Clause: If one exists, the law chosen by that clause is the proper law, and the analysis largely concludes.
  检查是否存在法律适用条款：如果存在，该条款所选择的法律即为适用法律，分析基本结束。

• Second Principle: Closest and Most Real Connection: If there is no valid choice, the court will objectively find the law of the country with which the contract has the closest and most real connection.
  第二原则：最密切和最真实的联系：如果没有有效的选择，法院将客观地确定与合同具有最密切和最真实联系的国家的法律。

• 例句: Since there is no express or implied choice of law clause, the proper law is to be determined objectively by ascertaining the system of law with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection. This involves identifying and weighing the various factors connecting the contract to different legal systems.
  例句：由于没有明示或默示的法律适用条款，适用法律应通过客观确定交易与之具有最密切和最真实联系的法律体系来确定。这涉及识别并权衡将合同与不同法律体系联系起来的各种因素。
• Factors to Consider:  考虑因素：

• Place of performance (lex solutionis).
  履行地（lex solutionis）。

• First Laser 案确立的原则：在没有法律选择条款时，合同的履行地 (place of performance / lex solutionis) 通常是决定准据法的最重要因素
• 例句: Precision is a German company, and the characteristic performance of the contract (the design and manufacture of the processors) took place in Germany. The place of performance is a very weighty factor.
  例句：Precision 是一家德国公司，合同的特征性履行（处理器的设计和制造）发生在德国。履行地是一个非常重要的因素。

• Location of the subject matter of the contract.
  合同标的所在地。
• Domicile of the parties.  当事人的住所地。
• Legal terminology used.  法律术语的使用。
• Exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
  专属管辖权条款。

• 例句: Most significantly, the parties included a Hong Kong EJC in their contract. The presence of a Hong Kong EJC is an extremely powerful indicator of the parties' intentions. It strongly suggests that the parties intended to subject their entire legal relationship, including the substance of any dispute, to the Hong Kong legal system. A court is very likely to give this factor decisive weight and conclude that the contract's "centre of gravity" is in Hong Kong.
  例句：最重要的是，双方在合同中包含了香港专属管辖权条款。香港专属管辖权条款的存在是双方意图的极其有力的指示。它强烈表明双方意图将其整个法律关系，包括任何争议的实质内容，置于香港法律体系之下。法院很可能会对此因素给予决定性权重，并认定合同的“重心”在香港。

• Related contracts.   相关合同。

• Aquavita 明确指出，为了避免商业上的不协调，法院通常会推断 (infer) 附属的担保合同与它所担保的主合同适用相同的法律体系。因为担保的责任范围和性质，直接取决于主合同下的义务，如果两者适用不同法律，会产生巨大的混乱和不确定性。

• The validation principle (courts prefer a choice of law that renders the contract valid).
  有效性原则（法院倾向于选择使合同有效的适用法律）。

• Weighing the Factors:  权衡因素：

• 例句: Following the modern common law approach, as affirmed by the Hong Kong courts in cases like First Laser, the place where the contract is to be performed is typically the most important factor in this analysis.  While some elements of the transaction are connected to Hong Kong, the commercial "centre of gravity" of the contract is unequivocally in Mainland China. This is where the essential purpose of the contract—the procurement and delivery of the minerals—was to be fulfilled.
  例句：根据现代普通法方法，正如香港法院在 First Laser 等案件中确认的，合同履行地通常是此类分析中最重要的因素。虽然交易的某些要素与香港有关，但合同的商业“重心”无疑位于中国大陆。合同的根本目的——矿产的采购和交付——正是在此地实现。
• Therefore, a Hong Kong court would almost certainly conclude that Mainland Chinese law is the proper law of the contract.
  因此，香港法院几乎肯定会认定中国大陆法律为合同的适用法律。

• Step 3 (Sub-issue): Dealing with "Illegality"
  步骤 3（子问题）：处理“非法性”

• Illegality under the Proper Law: If a contract is illegal under its proper law, it is unenforceable.
  适用法律下的非法性：如果合同在其适用法律下是非法的，则该合同不可执行。

• 例句: The established rule is that a contract that is illegal under its own proper law is unenforceable in Hong Kong. Here, the proper law is Mainland Chinese law. The new legislation in the Mainland has made the performance of the contract illegal. As a result, the contract is unenforceable under its own governing law. On this basis alone, Kowloon's claim for breach of contract will fail.
  例句：既定规则是，合同若在其自身适用法律下非法，则在香港不可执行。此处，适用法律为中国大陆法律。大陆的新立法使合同的履行变为非法。因此，该合同根据其适用法律不可执行。仅基于此，九龙的违约索赔将失败。

• Illegality at the Place of Performance: If the proper law is Hong Kong law (and the contract is legal in Hong Kong), but performance is to take place in a foreign country where it is illegal, Hong Kong courts will not enforce the contract on the basis of comity (Ralli Bros).
  履行地的非法性：如果适用法律为香港法（且合同在香港合法），但履行地为外国且该地履行非法，香港法院将基于礼让原则（Ralli Bros 案）不予执行该合同。

• 例句: The principle established in Ralli Bros v Compania Naviera dictates that a Hong Kong court will not enforce a contract, even if it is legal under its proper law (Hong Kong law), if its performance is illegal in the country where performance is to take place.
  例句：《Ralli Bros 诉 Compania Naviera 案》确立的原则规定，即使合同根据其适用法律（香港法）是合法的，香港法院也不会执行该合同，如果合同的履行在履行地国家是非法的。

• In this case, the place of performance was Mainland China. Since the new law has made performance illegal there, a Hong Kong court would refuse to enforce the contract on the grounds of international comity.
  在本案中，履行地为中国大陆。由于新法律使得在该地履行合同成为非法，香港法院将基于国际礼让原则拒绝执行该合同。

• Kleinwort 案的例外：

• Wong的合同义务是在Golden Wonder违约时，向香港的New Dawn付款。履行的核心行为是“付款”，履行地很可能在香港
• Wong声称的“非法性”，是指他为了履行这个付款义务，可能需要在内地进行违反外汇管制的行为（如换汇、汇款）。但这只是为了付款而做的准备行为，并非合同本身要求的、在内地履行的义务
• 法院会认为，合同本身并不要求Wong必须在内地做任何事。他完全可能通过合法的途径，或者使用他可能在海外拥有的资金来履行担保责任

• Illegality by Common Intent: If the parties share a common intention to perform the contract in an illegal manner, the contract is unenforceable (Foster v Driscoll).
  共同意图的非法性：如果双方共有意图以非法方式履行合同，则该合同不可执行（Foster 诉 Driscoll 案）。
• Qualifications: This rule may not apply if the degree of illegality is minor (Ryder Industries) or if the illegality is caused by the defendant's own fault.
  限定条件：如果非法程度较轻（Ryder Industries 案）或非法行为是由被告自身过错引起的，则该规则可能不适用。

• 反例: The qualification from Ryder Industries regarding "minor" illegality is not applicable here; a state ban on the export of strategic resources is a significant matter of public policy, not a minor technical breach.
  反例：Ryder Industries 关于“轻微”违法行为的限定不适用于此；州对战略资源出口的禁令属于重大公共政策事项，而非轻微的技术性违约。

• Mandatory Rules: Even if parties choose a foreign law, they cannot evade Hong Kong's local mandatory laws (such as the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance, the Employment Ordinance, etc.).
  强制性规则：即使当事人选择适用外国法律，也不能规避香港的本地强制性法律（如《免责条款管制条例》、《雇佣条例》等）。

Choice of Law in Tort (C3)
侵权行为的法律选择（C3）

• Substance/Procedure Distinction: This distinction is crucial for damages.
  实体法/程序法区分：该区分对损害赔偿至关重要。

• Substantive issues (governed by both foreign and Hong Kong law): basis of liability, defences, and heads of damage.
  实体问题（受外国法和香港法共同管辖）：责任基础、抗辩理由及损害赔偿项目。

• 实体问题（Heads of Loss）： 我能不能就‘精神痛苦’要钱？ -> 看两边法律都允不允许 (DA)

• Procedural issues (governed solely by Hong Kong law): quantification/assessment of damages, including caps on damages from foreign law (Harding v Wealands).
  程序问题（仅受香港法管辖）：损害赔偿的量化/评估，包括外国法中的赔偿上限（Harding 诉 Wealands 案）。

• 程序问题（Quantification）： 对于允许索赔的经济损失，具体该赔多少钱？那个50万的上限怎么处理？ -> 只看香港法，忽略外国的上限
• Following established Hong Kong common law principles, statutes of limitation that merely bar a remedy (as most do) are classified as procedural.
  根据香港既定普通法原则，仅仅剥夺救济权的时效规定（大多数时效规定均属此类）被归类为程序性规定。
• 例句: Matters of procedure are always governed by the law of the forum (lex fori), which is Hong Kong law. The Swiss limitation period, being a foreign procedural rule, will be disregarded by the Hong Kong court.
  例句：程序事项始终由审理法院的法律（lex fori），即香港法管辖。瑞士的时效期间作为外国程序规则，将被香港法院忽视。

• 只有当一个外国的法律规则（a rule of foreign law）可能会被引入到香港的审判中，并与香港本地的规则发生冲突时，我们才需要启动“实体/程序”的区分程序，来决定到底该适用哪一个
• 在讨论责任成立 (establishment of liability) (D的行为是否构成侵权?)中，为什么我们不讨论“犯错”的性质？

• 因为在分析责任是否成立的阶段，我们遵循的是DA规则。DA规则本身已经告诉我们该怎么做了，它是一个完整的、自洽的法律选择框架，其内部已经消化了“实体/程序”的考量
• 在这个过程中，我们根本不需要去问“‘犯错’这个行为本身是实体还是程序”，因为DA规则的两个分支运用的都是实体法规则（即判断责任是否成立的规则）。我们只是在用两套不同的实体法来检验同一个事实
• 在DA规则被满足的情况下，香港法院将适用香港的实体法 (lex fori) 来审理案件的是非曲直和决定赔偿

• Place of the Tort: When the place of acting and the place of harm differ, the court applies the "place in substance" test to determine the location of the tort.
  侵权行为地：当行为地与损害地不同时，法院适用“实质地点”测试以确定侵权行为发生地。

• 例句: The first step in a choice of law analysis for tort is to determine the "place in substance" where the tort was committed.
  例句：侵权法律选择分析的第一步是确定侵权行为“实质地点”。

• Step 1: Determine the "Substance" of Where the Tort Occurred
  第一步：确定侵权行为发生的“实质地点”

• If it substantially occurred in Hong Kong, Hong Kong law must be applied.
  如果侵权行为实质上发生在香港，则必须适用香港法律。

• 例句: While the negligent act (defective design/manufacture) may have originated in Germany, the damage occurred entirely in Hong Kong. The processor exploded in Hong Kong, the equipment was destroyed in Hong Kong, and Mr. Chan suffered his injuries in Hong Kong.
  例句：虽然过失行为（设计/制造缺陷）可能起源于德国，但损害完全发生在香港。处理器在香港爆炸，设备在香港被毁，陈先生在香港受伤。

The "place in substance" of the tort is Hong Kong. This makes it a domestic tort, not a foreign one. The complex Double Actionability rule is not applicable. The Hong Kong court must apply Hong Kong law (lex fori) to determine all aspects of the negligence claim.
侵权行为的“实质发生地”是香港。这使其成为本地侵权行为，而非外国侵权行为。复杂的双重可诉性规则不适用。香港法院必须适用香港法（lex fori）来确定过失索赔的所有方面。

• If it substantially occurred outside Hong Kong, proceed to Step 2.
  如果侵权行为实质上发生在香港以外，则进入第二步。

• 例句: As the tort occurred entirely outside Hong Kong, the Hong Kong court will apply the general choice of law rule for foreign torts, which is the rule of Double Actionability established in Boys v Chaplin. This rule is subject to a flexible exception where justice requires its disapplication.
  例句：由于侵权行为完全发生在香港以外，香港法院将适用针对外国侵权行为的一般法律选择规则，即 Boys 诉 Chaplin 案确立的双重可诉性规则。该规则在司法公正要求时可灵活例外，不予适用。

• Step 2: General Rule: Double Actionability (DA)
  步骤 2：一般规则：双重可诉性（DA）

• Core Test: For a tort committed abroad to be actionable in Hong Kong, it must satisfy two conditions simultaneously:
  核心测试：在香港对一项在国外实施的侵权行为提起诉讼，必须同时满足两个条件：

• 例句: The DA rule requires that the wrongdoing is actionable as a tort under Hong Kong law (lex fori) and that it gives rise to civil liability under the law of the place where it was done, Arcadia (lex loci delicti).
  例句：双重可诉性规则要求该不法行为在香港法（诉讼地法 lex fori）下构成侵权行为，且根据行为发生地法——阿卡迪亚法（侵权地法 lex loci delicti）——产生民事责任。
• (1) it would be a tort if it occurred in Hong Kong
  (1) 如果该行为发生在香港，则构成侵权行为

• 例句: The negligent driving by an employee of Arcadian Logistics Inc. clearly constitutes the tort of negligence in Hong Kong, satisfying the first limb of the test.
  例句：Arcadian Logistics Inc. 一名员工的疏忽驾驶行为明显构成香港的过失侵权，满足测试的第一项条件。

• (2) it must also give rise to civil liability under the law of the place where it was committed (lex loci delicti).
  （二）该行为还必须根据行为发生地的法律（lex loci delicti）产生民事责任。

• 例句: For the HK$2 million in medical expenses and lost earnings, the act of negligent driving does give rise to civil liability in Arcadia. Therefore, for this head of loss, both limbs of the DA rule are satisfied.
  例句：对于 200 万港元的医疗费用和收入损失，疏忽驾驶行为确实在 Arcadia 引起民事责任。因此，就此项损失而言，双重可诉性规则的两项条件均已满足。
• Presumption of Similarity: Presume the foreign law is the same as Hong Kong law, although this presumption has its limits, especially for tax law or highly territorial statutes.
  相似性推定：推定外国法律与香港法律相同，尽管该推定存在一定限制，尤其适用于税法或高度地域性的法规。

• This rule also applies to the heads of loss that can be claimed.
  该规则同样适用于可主张的损失项目。

• “双重可诉性（Double Actionability）”规则不仅是看整个侵权行为（比如“疏忽驾驶”）在两地是否都可诉，而是要更进一步，具体到每一个索赔的项目（每一个 head of loss）上，分别进行检验

• “可索赔的损失类别 (heads of loss)” 被视为实体法 (Substance) 问题 。因此，必须同时满足两地的法律

• "Heads of Loss" 指的是原告在提出损害赔偿诉讼时，可以就其遭受的损失提出索赔的具体“项目”或“类别”。
• 主要可以分为两大类：

• 金钱损失 (Pecuniary Loss):  金钱损失（Pecuniary Loss）：

• 医疗费用 (Medical Expenses)  医疗费用（Medical Expenses）
• 收入损失 (Lost Earnings)，包括过去的和未来的
• 护理费用 (Cost of Care)  护理费用（Cost of Care）
• 其他因侵权行为产生的、可以用金钱计算的实际开支

• 非金钱损失 (Non-Pecuniary Loss):
  非金钱损失：

• 肉体和精神上的痛苦与折磨 (Pain and Suffering)
• 生活便利的丧失 (Loss of Amenity)，比如你以前喜欢跑步，现在因为腿伤再也不能跑了，这种生活乐趣的丧失。
• 毁容 (Disfigurement)  毁容

• 例句: The DA rule applies not only to the cause of action itself but also to the specific heads of loss claimed, as this is considered a matter of substantive law. The facts state that Arcadian law does not permit the recovery of damages for "pain and suffering."
  例句：双重可诉性规则不仅适用于诉讼请求本身，也适用于所主张的具体损失项目，因为这被视为实体法问题。事实陈述中指出，阿卡迪亚法律不允许因“痛苦和折磨”而获得赔偿。

• If the foreign law provides a complete substantive defence (e.g., an exclusion clause), the rule is not satisfied, and the claim fails.
  如果外国法律提供了完整的实体抗辩（例如排除条款），则该规则不成立，索赔失败。
• The plaintiff gets the worst of the laws of both jurisdictions.
  原告受到两个法域法律中最不利的规定。

• Step 3: The Flexible Exception: If the strict application of the double actionability rule leads to injustice, the court may disapply it and instead apply the law of the country with the "most significant relationship" to the tort.
  步骤三：灵活例外：如果严格适用双重可诉性规则导致不公，法院可以不适用该规则，而改适用与侵权行为“最具重要联系”的国家法律。

• 例句: This exception allows a court to disapply the DA rule where justice requires, and instead apply the law of the country with which the tort has the most significant relationship. However, the threshold for invoking this exception is very high; the connecting factors must "overwhelmingly be in favour of one country".
  例句：该例外允许法院在正义要求时不适用双重可诉性规则，而改适用与侵权行为最具重要联系的国家法律。然而，适用该例外的门槛非常高；连接因素必须“压倒性地倾向于某一国家”。
• 反例: In this case, the tort occurred in Arcadia, and the defendant is an Arcadian company operating exclusively there. Peter's only connection to Hong Kong is that it is his place of residence. The connections are, at best, split between the two jurisdictions and do not overwhelmingly point to Hong Kong. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a court would apply the exception.
  反例：在本案中，侵权行为发生在阿卡迪亚，被告是一家仅在阿卡迪亚经营的公司。彼得与香港的唯一联系是其居住地。两法域的联系充其量是分散的，且并未压倒性地指向香港。因此，法院极不可能适用该例外。
• 方向一：排除“侵权地法”，适用“法院地法” (Displacing the Lex Loci in favour of the Lex Fori)

• 经典案例： Boys v Chaplin   经典案例：Boys 诉 Chaplin 案
• 案情： 两名英国军人在马耳他发生车祸。马耳他法（lex loci）不允许就“精神痛苦”索赔
• 应用： 法院认为，双方都是英国人，与英国的联系远比与马耳他的联系更紧密。为了避免不公，法院启动例外规则，排除了马耳他法的限制，并适用了英国法（lex fori），允许原告获得精神痛苦的赔偿

• 方向二：排除“法院地法”，适用“侵权地法” (Displacing the Lex Fori in favour of the Lex Loci)

• 经典案例： Red Sea Insurance v Bouygues
  经典案例：Red Sea Insurance 诉 Bouygues 案
• 案情： 一个案件中，根据香港法（lex fori），保险公司不能直接起诉次级承包商。但根据侵权地沙特阿拉伯的法律（lex loci），这种直接起诉是允许的。
• 应用： 枢密院发现，案件的所有连接因素（合同、履行、当事人总部等）都“压倒性地 (overwhelmingly)”指向沙特阿拉伯 。因此，为了实现公正，法院再次启动例外规则，但这次是排除了香港法的限制，并适用了沙特阿拉伯法，允许了该直接起诉 。

• Step 4 (Sub-issue): The Substance/Procedure Distinction
  步骤 4（子问题）：实体法/程序法区分

• Distinction  区分

• 例句: The key issue here is the effect of the Arcadian statutory cap limiting damages to HK$500,000. To determine this, a Hong Kong court must first classify the nature of this rule as either substantive or procedural. Foreign substantive law rules are applied, whereas foreign procedural rules are ignored.
  例句：这里的关键问题是阿卡迪亚法定赔偿上限为 50 万港元的效力。为确定这一点，香港法院必须首先将该规则的性质归类为实体法或程序法。适用外国实体法规则，而忽略外国程序法规则。

• Traditional View: The quantification/assessment of damages, including a cap, is procedural and governed by Hong Kong law.
  传统观点：赔偿金额的量化/评估，包括上限，属于程序法范畴，适用香港法律。

• 例句: Following the authoritative UK House of Lords decision in Harding v Wealands, which is followed in Hong Kong, rules governing the assessment or quantification of damages, including a statutory cap on the amount recoverable, are classified as procedural. As the Arcadian damages cap is a procedural rule, it will be disregarded by the Hong Kong court. The court will instead apply its own procedural rules to assess the quantum of damages.
  例句：根据英国上议院在 Harding 诉 Wealands 案中的权威判决（香港亦采纳此判决），关于损害赔偿的评估或量化规则，包括可追回金额的法定上限，均被归类为程序性规则。由于 Arcadian 的损害赔偿上限属于程序性规则，香港法院将予以忽视。法院将适用其自身的程序规则来评估损害赔偿的金额。

• Modern View: A cap on damages is a substantive issue and would affect the satisfaction of the DA rule and the amount of recoverable damages.
  现代观点：损害赔偿上限属于实体性问题，会影响双重可诉性规则的满足情况及可追回赔偿金额。
• 香港遵循的是传统观点，即将损害赔偿的量化/评估（赔偿上限）视为程序问题。

• 例句: Therefore, as Hong Kong law follows the traditional approach established in Harding v Wealands, the court will treat the Arcadian statutory cap as a procedural matter and will ignore it. Damages for Peter's economic loss will be assessed according to Hong Kong's own standards, meaning he can potentially recover the full HK$2 million.
  例句：因此，鉴于香港法律遵循 Harding 诉 Wealands 案确立的传统方法，法院将把 Arcadian 的法定赔偿上限视为程序性事项并予以忽略。Peter 的经济损失赔偿将根据香港自身标准进行评估，这意味着他有可能追回全部 200 万港元。

• HK Law将“仅仅阻止寻求救济”的时效规则归类为程序性问题

Choice of Court  管辖法院选择

Jurisdiction & Forum Non Conveniens - C7 & C8
管辖权与不便法院原则 - 第 7 章与第 8 章

• No FNC if EJC: The presence of the Hong Kong EJC in Clause 30 is the decisive factor. According to the legal principles consistently applied by Hong Kong courts, where parties have agreed to an EJC in favour of Hong Kong, the forum non conveniens test is displaced and no longer relevant. (例句)
  如有排他性司法管辖权（EJC），则无不便法院原则：第 30 条款中香港排他性司法管辖权的存在是决定性因素。根据香港法院一贯适用的法律原则，若当事人已同意以香港为排他性司法管辖地，则不便法院原则不适用且不再相关。（例句）

• The court will not conduct the Spiliada three-stage balancing test. Instead, it will start from the position that it must enforce the parties' contractual agreement. The burden shifts entirely to Precision to demonstrate "strong cause" or "exceptional, unforeseeable reasons" why the Hong Kong court should decline the jurisdiction that Precision itself agreed to.
  法院不会进行 Spiliada 三阶段权衡测试。相反，法院将从必须执行当事人合同约定的立场出发。举证责任完全转移至 Precision，须证明存在“充分理由”或“例外且不可预见的原因”，说明为何香港法院应放弃 Precision 自身同意的管辖权。

• Step 1 [The Threshold Issue]: Does the Hong Kong Court Have Jurisdiction?
  第一步【门槛问题】：香港法院是否具有管辖权？

• Jurisdiction as of Right by Submission:
  通过提交而获得的管辖权：

• Has the defendant voluntarily accepted the court's jurisdiction, either expressly through a jurisdiction clause  or impliedly by fighting the case on its merits (e.g., filing a defence on the merits, seeking relief from the court)?
  被告是否自愿接受了法院的管辖权，或通过明确的管辖条款，或通过实质性地参与诉讼（例如提交实质性答辩、寻求法院救济）而默示接受？
• Once a party submits, they are precluded from later objecting to the court's jurisdiction , and the FNC test is not applied.
  一旦一方提交，便不得再对法院的管辖权提出异议，且不适用最方便法院（FNC）测试。

• Jurisdiction as of Right by Presence:
  因在场而享有的管辖权：

• Individuals: Was the writ served on the defendant while they were physically present in Hong Kong, even if briefly?
  个人：传票是否在被告实际身处香港期间送达，即使时间很短？
• Companies: Does the foreign company have a fixed place of business in Hong Kong and actually "carry on business" from there?
  公司：外国公司是否在香港有固定营业地点，并且实际上从该处“开展业务”？

• Long-Arm Jurisdiction (RHC O.11):
  长臂管辖权（RHC O.11）：

• Has the plaintiff sought and obtained the court's leave for service out of the jurisdiction, as the defendant is not in Hong Kong?
  原告是否已申请并获得法院许可，在被告不在香港的情况下进行境外送达？
• Does the case meet at least one of the "gateways" listed in O.11, for example:
  该案件是否符合《第 11 号令》中列出的至少一个“门户”条件，例如：

• The contract was made in or is governed by Hong Kong law.
  合同是在香港订立或受香港法律管辖。
• The breach of contract (e.g., non-payment) occurred in Hong Kong.
  合同违约（例如未付款）发生在香港。
• The "damage was sustained in Hong Kong" from a tort. The Court of Final Appeal in FONG CHAK KWAN gave this a broad interpretation, which can cover indirect damage.
  侵权行为中“损害发生在香港”。终审法院在 FONG CHAK KWAN 案中对此作出了广义解释，涵盖了间接损害。
• "Substantial and efficacious acts" constituting the tort were committed in Hong Kong.
  构成侵权的“实质性和有效行为”是在香港实施的。

• 例句: As P obtained leave to serve the writ out of the jurisdiction, this is a case of "long arm" jurisdiction under RHC Order 11. The applicable legal framework is the three-stage test established in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd and authoritatively restated for Hong Kong in SPH v SA. A critical preliminary point is the burden of proof. In "long arm" jurisdiction cases, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that Hong Kong is clearly the appropriate forum for the trial of the action.
  例句：由于原告获得许可在境外送达传票，本案属于根据 RHC 第 11 号令的“长臂”管辖权案件。适用的法律框架是 Spiliada Maritime Corp 诉 Cansulex Ltd 案中确立的三阶段测试，并在 SPH 诉 SA 案中为香港权威重申。一个关键的初步问题是举证责任。在“长臂”管辖权案件中，举证责任在于原告，须证明香港显然是审理该诉讼的适当法庭。

• Step 2 [The Core Analysis]: Should the Hong Kong Court Exercise Its Jurisdiction
  第二步【核心分析】：香港法院是否应行使其管辖权

• Core Question: Even if the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction, is there another available forum that is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action? This is based on the three-stage test established in Spiliada and authoritatively summarized by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in SPH v SA.
  核心问题：即使香港法院拥有管辖权，是否存在另一个明显更适合审理该诉讼的法庭？这一问题基于 Spiliada 案确立的三阶段测试，并由香港终审法院在 SPH 诉 SA 案中权威总结。

• Initial Burden of Proof  初步举证责任

• If jurisdiction is  "as of right" (e.g., service in HK), the burden is squarely on the defendant to convince the court to decline jurisdiction. Hong Kong is presumed to be the appropriate forum , and if the factors are equal, the defendant fails to discharge their burden.
  如果管辖权是“固有权利”（例如，在香港送达），举证责任完全在被告，须说服法院放弃管辖权。香港被推定为适当的审理法庭，若各因素相等，被告未能完成其举证责任。
• If jurisdiction is  "long arm", the burden is on the plaintiff to show that Hong Kong is clearly the appropriate forum for the trial.
  如果管辖权是“长臂管辖”，举证责任在原告，须证明香港显然是审理该案的适当法庭。

• The Forum Non Conveniens (FNC) Test
  不便法院审理原则（FNC）测试
• Stage 1: Is there a more appropriate forum?
  第一阶段：是否存在更合适的法院？

• The applicant must prove there is another available forum that is clearly and distinctly more appropriate.
  申请人必须证明存在另一个明显且明显更合适的可用法院。

• Long-Arm Case: P的责任是证明香港本身就是那个明显更合适的法庭，而不是去证明“存在另一个”合适的法庭。明确指出适用FNC三阶段测试，且举证责任在原告身上，他必须证明香港是明显更合适的法庭。
• Bar: The defendant must identify a specific alternative jurisdiction for comparison.
  限制：被告必须确定一个具体的替代管辖区以供比较。
• 例句: The first stage requires an analysis of whether P can discharge its burden of proving that Hong Kong is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum than the Philippines. This involves weighing the factors that connect the dispute to each jurisdiction.
  例句：第一阶段需要分析原告是否能够证明香港明显且明确地比菲律宾更适合作为审理地。这涉及权衡将争议与各司法管辖区联系起来的因素。

• Factors to Consider (Factors Connecting the Dispute to the Foreign Country v. Factors Connecting the Dispute to Hong Kong)
  考虑因素（将争议与外国联系的因素 vs. 将争议与香港联系的因素）

• Connections  联系

• Connecting Factors to HK: P是香港公司 ；部分证人和文件在香港
• Connecting Factors to the Foreign Country: D是菲律宾公司 ；大部分合同履行地和证人在菲律宾

• Place of Performance  履行地点

• 例句: The substance of the contract concerned consultancy for a resort being built in the Philippines, making the Philippines the primary place of contractual performance.
  例句：合同的实质内容是为菲律宾正在建设的度假村提供咨询服务，因此菲律宾是合同履行的主要地点。

• Location of Witnesses and Evidence: 
  证人和证据的位置：

• The inability to compel a key witness to testify in a foreign jurisdiction due to legitimate safety fears is a relevant consideration.
  由于合理的安全担忧，无法强制关键证人在外国司法管辖区作证是一个相关考虑因素。
• Although the importance of this factor has diminished with Video Conferencing Facilities (VCF), Hong Kong courts still prefer key witnesses to appear in person, especially where credibility is in issue.
  尽管随着视频会议设施（VCF）的发展，该因素的重要性有所降低，香港法院仍然更倾向于关键证人亲自出庭，尤其是在信誉问题上。
• 例句: Many of the relevant witnesses regarding the resort project and Tarlac's business are likely to be located in the Philippines.
  例句：关于度假村项目和塔尔拉克业务的许多相关证人很可能位于菲律宾。

• Governing Law: This is a significant pointer.
  适用法律：这是一个重要的指示。

• If Hong Kong law governs, it is a strong factor in favor of a trial in Hong Kong. If a foreign law governs, Hong Kong courts are generally competent to handle it, unless the foreign law issue is exceptionally difficult and complex. If a case involves complex PRC law and policy considerations that PRC judges are more familiar with, this points toward the Mainland courts.
  如果适用香港法律，这对在香港审理案件是一个有力因素。如果适用外国法律，香港法院通常有管辖权处理，除非该外国法律问题异常复杂且困难。如果案件涉及复杂的中国大陆法律和政策考量，而中国大陆法官对此更为熟悉，则倾向于大陆法院审理。
• However, if the foreign law (e.g., Djibouti law based on the French Civil Code) is not substantially different in principle from Hong Kong law on the key issues, this factor carries less weight.
  然而，如果外国法律（例如基于法国民法典的吉布提法律）在关键问题上原则上与香港法律没有实质性差异，则该因素的权重较小。
• 注意: “submit...to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines”，这是一个非专属司法管辖权条款 (NEJC)，它只涉及“去哪里打官司”，而完全没有提及“适用哪里的法律”。 一个指向“他处”的NEJC，在FNC第一阶段的平衡中分量很轻。
• 合同的管辖法律（proper law）是未知的，需要通过“最密切联系”测试来判断。而履行地等因素可能指向菲律宾法。这是一个对D有利的因素。
• 例句: Jurisdiction Clause: The contract contains a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause (NEJC) in favour of the Philippines. While not determinative, it is a relevant factor. However, Hong Kong courts have held that an NEJC pointing elsewhere "should carry very little weight in the balancing exercise".
  管辖权条款：合同中包含一项有利于菲律宾的非排他性管辖权条款（NEJC）。虽然这不是决定性因素，但却是一个相关因素。然而，香港法院认为指向其他地区的 NEJC“在权衡过程中应赋予极少的权重”。

• Lis Alibi Pendens (another action pending elsewhere): This is merely one of the relevant factors and is generally not decisive. Courts dislike parallel proceedings. (ELITE CONSORTIUM)
  诉讼待决事由（Lis Alibi Pendens，另一地有待决诉讼）：这只是众多相关因素之一，通常并非决定性因素。法院不喜欢平行诉讼。（ELITE CONSORTIUM）
• Enforceability of Judgment: This is a very important factor
  判决的可执行性：这是一个非常重要的因素。

• It would be futile to force a plaintiff to litigate in a foreign country if the resulting judgment could not be enforced in Hong Kong, where the defendant's assets are located.
  如果强迫原告在外国诉讼，而所得判决无法在被告资产所在地香港执行，则此举将毫无意义。
• The potential lack of enforceability of a foreign judgment in Hong Kong (where the defendant has assets) is a powerful argument against a stay.
  外国判决在香港（被告拥有资产地）可能缺乏可执行性，是反对中止诉讼的有力论据。
• Long-Arm Case: FNC中“判决可执行性”这个因素，是从原告的角度看的。问题应该是：如果P在香港赢了官司，他能否在D有资产的地方（菲律宾）有效执行这个香港判决？或者，如果P被迫去菲律宾打官司并获胜，他能否顺利执行？

• Substantial and difficult issues of foreign law
  重大且复杂的外国法律问题

• Rambas Marketing 案指出，当案件涉及“重大且困难的外国法问题 (substantial and difficult issues of foreign law)”时，法院可能会倾向于中止诉讼，因为存在“得出错误结论的显著风险 (appreciable risk that justice will not be done)”

• Analysis of Stage 1:  第一阶段分析：

• 例句: The connecting factors point more strongly towards the Philippines. The centre of gravity of the dispute is the Philippines, being the defendant's home, the place of performance, and the location of much of the likely evidence. The NEJC, though weak, also points there. In contrast, the connection to Hong Kong is primarily that it is the plaintiff's home. Given that the burden is on P to show Hong Kong is clearly more appropriate, it is highly likely that P will fail to discharge this burden at Stage 1. The court will likely conclude that the Philippines is the more appropriate forum
  例句：连接因素更强烈地指向菲律宾。争议的重心在菲律宾，因为那里是被告的住所、履行地以及大量可能证据的所在地。尽管 NEJC 较弱，但也指向菲律宾。相比之下，与香港的联系主要是因为香港是原告的住所。鉴于举证责任在于原告证明香港明显是更适当的法院，原告在第一阶段很可能无法完成此举证责任。法院很可能认定菲律宾是更适当的审理地。

• Stage 2: Will the plaintiff be deprived of a legitimate juridical advantage in Hong Kong?
  第二阶段：原告是否会在香港被剥夺合法的法律利益？

• This stage is only relevant if the plaintiff loses at Stage 1. The burden is on the plaintiff.
  只有在第一阶段原告败诉时，此阶段才相关。举证责任在原告。

• 举证责任在P，他需要证明在菲律宾诉讼会丧失其在香港的合法司法优势
• 例句: As P is likely to lose at Stage 1, the analysis proceeds to the second stage. The burden is now on P to show that it would be deprived of a "legitimate personal or juridical advantage" if forced to litigate in the Philippines, such that it would be denied substantial justice.
  例句：由于 P 在第一阶段可能败诉，分析进入第二阶段。现在举证责任在 P，需证明如果被迫在菲律宾诉讼，将被剥夺“合法的个人或法律利益”，从而无法获得实质性正义。

• Typical Advantages:  典型利益：

• Time Bars: The claim would be time-barred in the foreign jurisdiction. This is a significant juridical disadvantage, but courts will examine if the plaintiff's failure to meet the time limit was due to their own unreasonable conduct.
  时效阻断：该诉讼在外国法域内将因时效届满而被驳回。这是一个重大的法律劣势，但法院会审查原告未能在时限内提起诉讼是否因其自身不合理的行为所致。
• Delay: The foreign judicial system suffers from extreme delays, leading to "justice delayed." For example, if a case takes 8-10 years to come to trial.
  延误：外国司法系统存在极端延误，导致“正义迟到”。例如，案件审理需时 8 至 10 年。
• Fair Trial  公正审判

• The plaintiff will be unable to obtain a fair trial in the foreign jurisdiction. The evidentiary threshold for this is extremely high, requiring "cogent evidence" and not just general assertions.
  原告将在外国法域内无法获得公正审判。对此的举证标准极高，要求“确凿证据”，而非一般性主张。
• Evidence of difficulty in finding local lawyers willing to act against the state, or that a key witness cannot safely attend trial, are legitimate considerations. There are no reported cases ruling that a fair trial cannot be had in the Mainland.
  证明难以找到愿意对抗国家的本地律师，或关键证人无法安全出庭的情况，是合理的考虑因素。目前没有判例认定在内地无法获得公正审判。

• Discovery Procedures: Vastly superior discovery procedures. Inadequate discovery procedures in the foreign jurisdiction can be a decisive Stage 2 factor.
  证据开示程序：证据开示程序远远优越。外国法域中证据开示程序不足，可能成为第二阶段的决定性因素。
• Higher Damages: The ability to obtain higher damages.
  更高的赔偿金：获得更高赔偿金的能力。

• The fact that a plaintiff would obtain significantly higher damages in Hong Kong can be a strong Stage 2 reason in their favor.
  原告在香港能够获得显著更高赔偿金的事实，可能成为有利于其的强有力第二阶段理由。
• 例句: Hong Kong courts have repeatedly held that a substantial difference in the level of recoverable damages can constitute a legitimate juridical advantage for the purposes of a Stage 2 analysis. As established in cases like Adhiguna Meranti and confirmed more recently in Pusan Newport v Milano Bridge, this is a strong reason in favour of allowing the case to proceed in Hong Kong. The loss of a substantial remedy goes to the heart of achieving justice.
  例句：香港法院多次裁定，可追回赔偿金额的显著差异可构成第二阶段分析中合法的司法利益。如 Adhiguna Meranti 案所确立，并在 Pusan Newport 诉 Milano Bridge 案中得到最新确认，这构成支持案件在香港继续审理的重要理由。失去重大救济直接关系到实现正义的核心。

• 判决可执行性： Winwin会争辩说，它在香港起诉的目的是为了能直接执行Tony在香港的资产。如果被迫去澳门诉讼并获胜，其澳门判决可能无法轻易地在香港得到承认和执行。能够获得一个“直接可执行的本地判决”是一项重大的司法优势

• Stage 3: The court's final balancing act to achieve substantial justice.
  第三阶段：法院为实现实质正义所做的最终权衡。

• 例句: At Stage 3, the court must balance the conclusion from Stage 1 (that the Philippines is the more appropriate forum) against the conclusion from Stage 2 (that P would lose a major juridical advantage there). The ultimate question is whether, despite the loss of this advantage, substantial justice can still be done in the Philippines.
  例句：在第三阶段，法院必须将第一阶段的结论（菲律宾是更适当的审判地）与第二阶段的结论（原告在那里将失去重大司法利益）进行权衡。最终问题是，尽管失去了该利益，菲律宾是否仍能实现实质正义。
• Ordinarily, a plaintiff must take the appropriate forum as they find it, even if it is less advantageous.
  通常，原告必须接受其所遇到的适当审判地，即使该地不那么有利。

• However, the court will consider the strength of the connection to the foreign forum and the magnitude of the advantage that would be lost.
  然而，法院将考虑与外国法庭的联系强度以及将失去的利益规模。
• 例句: Here, the connection to the Philippines is strong but not exclusive. The advantage lost is not minor or merely procedural; a "significant" difference in damages could mean the difference between a compensatory award and a derisory one, potentially leading to a substantial injustice for Chung.
  例句：在此，菲律宾的联系虽强但并非排他性。失去的利益不仅是微不足道或仅仅是程序性的；赔偿金额的“显著”差异可能意味着从补偿性赔偿到象征性赔偿的区别，可能导致钟先生遭受重大不公。

• Given that Hong Kong's Court of Appeal has consistently treated a significant disparity in damages as a powerful Stage 2 factor, it is probable that the court would conclude that forcing P to litigate in the Philippines would not be in the interests of justice.
  鉴于香港上诉法院一贯将赔偿差异显著视为第二阶段的重要因素，法院很可能会认定强迫原告在菲律宾诉讼不符合司法公正的利益。

Party Autonomy in Jurisdiction (C9 & C10)
当事人管辖权自治（第 9 章与第 10 章）

Jurisdiction Clauses  管辖权条款

• Step 1: Identification and Characterisation
  第一步：识别与性质界定

• Exclusive (EJC), Non-Exclusive (NEJC), or Asymmetrical
  排他性（EJC）、非排他性（NEJC）或不对称性

• “Asymmetrical Jurisdiction Clause”（不对称/单边管辖权条款）是一种特殊的管辖权条款，它赋予合同双方不平等的诉讼权利
• Cheung CJHC in RICH VILLAGE v GRAND PRIDE HOLDINGS: “..an exclusive jurisdiction clause is by definition, an important clause…For such an important clause to be found in a serious and important commercial contract….one would expect the exclusive jurisdiction clause to be expressed in clear terms..”  
  张大法官在 RICH VILLAGE 诉 GRAND PRIDE HOLDINGS 案中指出：“……排他性管辖权条款本质上是一项重要条款……对于如此重要且严肃的商业合同中的此类条款……理应以明确的措辞表达排他性管辖权条款……”
• 最典型的例子就是银行贷款合同：

• 条款会规定，如果发生纠纷，借款人（borrower）只能在一个特定的法院（例如，香港法院）起诉银行。
• 但同时，条款赋予银行（lender）极大的灵活性，允许银行在任何它选择的法院（any court of competent jurisdiction）起诉借款人，尤其是借款人有资产的任何地方。

• 为什么叫“不对称”？因为双方的权利是不对等的

• 一方（银行）：权利是“开放式”的，可以在全球范围内追索，选择最有利的战场。
• 另一方（借款人）：权利是“封闭式”的，被锁定在一个固定的诉讼地点。

• 这种条款在金融领域非常普遍，因为它为资金提供方（银行）提供了最大限度的保护。在普通法下，这种不对称条款通常是有效且可以执行的

• Is the wording of the clause clear and mandatory ("shall," "must," "须")?
  条款的措辞是否明确且具有强制性（“应当”、“必须”、“须”）？
• If the answer is not obvious, it is best to consider both possibilities.
  如果答案不明显，最好同时考虑两种可能性。

• Step 2: Determine the legal effect
  步骤二：确定法律效力

• EJC: If proceedings are brought in the named forum, the clause will normally be upheld, and FNC rules will not be applied. A stay of proceedings brought in breach of an EJC will be granted unless there is  "strong cause" not to. The fact that a defendant has no arguable defence is not a strong cause. An EJC may be ignored in exceptional cases on the grounds of justice, for example, in a multi-party fraud case where enforcing the EJC would lead to undesirable fragmentation of proceedings.
  排他性司法管辖权协议（EJC）：如果诉讼在指定的法院提起，条款通常会被支持，且不会适用不方便法院规则（FNC）。除非存在“不充分理由”，否则会对违反 EJC 提起的诉讼予以中止。被告无可辩驳的抗辩理由并不构成“不充分理由”。在特殊情况下，基于公正原则，EJC 可能被忽视，例如在多方欺诈案件中，执行 EJC 会导致诉讼程序不必要的分割。

• What IS a strong cause: The inability to obtain an effective remedy or a fair trial in the chosen forum.
  强有力的理由是：在所选法庭无法获得有效的救济或公正的审判。
• What is NOT a strong cause: Inconvenience, global events like the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant having no credible defence (the court does not review the merits of the case), or the risk of fragmentation of proceedings (unless it involves complex, multi-party fraud).
  不构成强有力理由的是：不便、全球性事件如 COVID-19 大流行、被告无可信抗辩（法院不审查案件实质）、或诉讼程序分裂的风险（除非涉及复杂的多方欺诈）。
• Principle of Separability
  可分离性原则

• An EJC is independent of the main contract. The invalidity of the main contract does not affect the EJC, unless the reason for invalidity (e.g., fraud) is directed at the EJC itself (Fiona Trust).
  独立仲裁协议（EJC）独立于主合同。主合同的无效不影响独立仲裁协议，除非无效的原因（如欺诈）直接针对独立仲裁协议本身（Fiona Trust 案）。
• This principle does not apply to allegations of "forgery"
  该原则不适用于“伪造”指控

• 这里的 "forgery"（伪造）指的是一种非常具体和根本性的指控，即声称合同上的签名是假的，整个合同文件从一开始就是一份伪造品。
• 这构成了“可分性原则”（Principle of Separability）的一个重要例外: 当一方的指控不是“我被骗了才签的字”，而是“这个签名根本就不是我签的，是伪造的”时，情况就完全不同了。
• 如果签名是伪造的，那么不仅主合同从未成立，那个“管辖权条款”的迷你合同也从未被同意过。当事人从未表达过要接受该法院管辖的意图。
• 在这种情况下，可分性原则就不适用了。法院不能先假定一个从未被同意过的管辖权条款是有效的，然后再用它来判断案件。

• 简单类比：

• 欺诈性失实陈述 = “我确实签了这份租约，但房东骗我说房子带花园，结果没有。”（你同意了租约，但同意是有瑕疵的）
• 伪造 = “这份租约上的签名不是我的，我从没见过这份文件。”（你根本没有同意过租约）

• NEJC Hong Kong: If proceedings are brought in Hong Kong under an NEJC naming Hong Kong, it is treated like an EJC. The defendant must prove exceptional, unforeseeable reasons for a stay; conventional FNC factors are irrelevant.
  NEJC 香港：如果根据指定香港的 NEJC 在香港提起诉讼，则视同 EJC。被告必须证明有例外的、不可预见的理由以请求中止；传统的 FNC 因素不相关。
• NEJC Elsewhere: If proceedings are brought in Hong Kong in the face of an NEJC pointing elsewhere (e.g., Nanjing), the NEJC carries very little weight in the Stage 1 FNC analysis.
  NEJC 其他地区：如果在面对指向其他地区（例如南京）的 NEJC 时在香港提起诉讼，NEJC 在第一阶段 FNC 分析中权重极低。

Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASI)
反诉讼禁令（ASI）

• Definition: An order from a Hong Kong court directing a party over whom it has jurisdiction to halt proceedings in a foreign country.
  定义：香港法院发出的命令，指示其有管辖权的一方停止在外国的诉讼程序。
• Step 1: Identify the Basis for Granting ASI
  步骤 1：确定授予 ASI 的依据

• 例句: An ASI is a discretionary remedy that a Hong Kong court will grant cautiously out of respect for international comity. The primary grounds for granting an ASI are where the foreign proceedings are either (1) in breach of a contractual agreement, such as an exclusive jurisdiction clause (the "contractual ground"), or (2) are otherwise "vexatious, unconscionable or oppressive".
  例句：ASI 是一种酌情救济，香港法院会谨慎授予，以尊重国际礼让。授予 ASI 的主要依据是外国诉讼程序要么（1）违反合同约定，例如排他性管辖条款（“合同依据”），要么（2）属于“无理取闹、不合理或压迫性”的诉讼。

• Step 2: Apply the Granting Test: An ASI will only be granted if
  步骤 2：适用授予测试：只有在满足以下条件时，才会授予 ASI

• 1) Contractual Ground:   1) 合同依据：

• This is the strongest ground.
  这是最有力的依据。
• If the foreign proceedings are in breach of an EJC or arbitration agreement, the Hong Kong court will almost grant an injunction as a matter of course, unless the breaching party can show "strong reasons to the contrary."
  如果外国诉讼程序违反了欧洲司法协定（EJC）或仲裁协议，香港法院几乎会作为常规程序发出禁令，除非违约方能提出“强有力的相反理由”。
• The court does not need to conduct an FNC analysis or act with exceptional caution, as it is merely enforcing the parties' bargain.
  法院无需进行不方便法院（FNC）分析或采取特别谨慎的态度，因为法院仅是在执行当事人的协议。
• The court’s primary function is not to engage in a complex balancing act of convenience, but to uphold the contractual bargain freely entered into by the parties.
  法院的主要职能不是进行复杂的便利性权衡，而是维护当事人自由订立的合同约定。
• What does NOT constitute "strong reasons"?
  什么不构成“充分理由”？

• 诉讼不便 (Inconvenience)  诉讼不便

• 例如，“我的证人都在德国，去香港开庭太麻烦了”或者“相关证据都在德国，运输成本很高”。
• 理由： 这些便利性问题是你在签订EJC时就应该预见到的。你既然同意了去香港诉讼，就等于接受了随之而来的不便。

• 诉讼成本增加 (Increased Costs)

• 例如，“在香港打官司的律师费比在我的国家贵得多。”
• 理由： 同上，这是签订合同时可预见的商业风险。

• 被告没有可信的抗辩理由 (Defendant has no credible defence)
  被告没有可信的抗辩理由

• 例如，原告在香港起诉后，被告申请中止，理由是“原告的案子根本没道理，去英国（EJC指定的法院）审理纯粹是浪费时间”。
• 理由： 法院在决定管辖权时不应审查案件的实体是非。否则就等于提前审理了案件。

• 存在相关的多方诉讼 (Related multi-party litigation)
  存在相关的多方诉讼

• 例如，“虽然我们约定了在香港诉讼，但现在这个争议牵涉到其他几个当事人，他们都在英国打官司，为了避免诉讼碎片化，我们应该把这个案子也移到英国去。”
• 理由： 法院通常会优先执行双边合同的约定，而不会轻易因为其他诉讼的存在而破坏它。除非情况极其特殊，例如不这样做会导致完全无法实现公正（比如在一个复杂的、不可分割的多方欺诈案中）。

• 全球性事件（如新冠疫情）

• 法院已经明确表示，像新冠疫情这样的全球性事件，虽然给出行带来了不便，但并不构成不遵守EJC的“强有力理由”

• What MIGHT constitute "strong reasons"?
  什么可能构成“充分理由”？

• 指定的法院完全无法提供有效的救济 (No effective remedy in the chosen forum)

• 例如，你约定了在某国法院诉讼，但该国后来发生了政变或内战，整个司法系统陷入瘫痪，法院根本不开门

• 在指定的法院完全无法获得公平的审判 (Impossible to get a fair trial)

• 这需要极强的、有说服力的证据来证明，而不能是道听途说或普遍怀疑。
• 例如，你能证明该国的司法系统被某个政治势力完全控制，而你的对手正是该势力的核心成员，任何法官都不可能做出对你不利的判决。或者，该国通过了新的歧视性法律，明确禁止像你这样的外国实体在该国获得胜诉

• 公共政策 (Public Policy)  公共政策

• 在极其罕见的情况下，如果执行EJC会严重违反香港本地的根本公共政策，法院可能会拒绝执行。但这几乎从未在实践中成功过

• 例句: In this case, Clause 25 of the contract is an unambiguous Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause ("EJC") which stipulates that the Hong Kong courts "shall have exclusive jurisdiction". VE’s action in commencing proceedings in Russia is a clear breach of its contractual promise to litigate exclusively in Hong Kong.
  例句：在本案中，合同第 25 条款为明确的排他性管辖条款（“EJC”），规定香港法院“应享有专属管辖权”。VE 在俄罗斯提起诉讼的行为明显违反了其在合同中承诺仅在香港进行诉讼的约定。

Therefore, HKF’s application is founded on the contractual ground. This is the strongest basis for an ASI. The established principle is that where foreign proceedings are brought in breach of an EJC, the court will grant an injunction almost as a matter of course to enforce the parties' bargain, unless the breaching party (VE) can show strong reasons to the contrary. VE has not raised any such reasons. HKF has therefore established a strong prima facie case for the grant of an ASI.
因此，HKF 的申请基于合同理由。这是申请临时禁令（ASI）最有力的依据。既定原则是，当外国诉讼违反排他性司法管辖权协议（EJC）时，法院几乎会例行授予禁令以执行双方的约定，除非违约方（VE）能提出充分的反对理由。VE 并未提出任何此类理由。因此，HKF 已经建立了强有力的初步证据，支持授予临时禁令。

• 2) Unconscionable Ground:
  2）不合理理由：

• This applies where there is no EJC and the bar is higher.
  此情形适用于无排他性司法管辖权协议（EJC）且标准更高的情况。
• The applicant must prove that:
  申请人必须证明：

• (1) Hong Kong is the "Natural Forum"
  (1) 香港是“自然法庭”

• 要证明香港是“天然法庭 (Natural Forum)”，申请ASI的一方所要做的，其实和在一个标准的“不方便法院”（Forum Non Conveniens, FNC）案件的第一阶段中，被告要证明“存在另一个明显更合适的法院”所做的分析，是完全一样的。
• 申请人需要向法官展示，在所有连接因素的综合考量下，香港与这个争议的联系最紧密、最真实。你需要运用FNC的分析工具来论证，例如：

• 管辖法律 (Governing Law): 证明合同的准据法是香港法。
• 当事人所在地: 证明关键一方（通常是申请人自己）是香港居民或公司。
• 合同履行地: 证明合同的关键部分是在香港履行的。
• 证据和证人所在地: 证明大部分关键文件和核心证人都在香港，在香港审理最方便。
• 侵权行为发生地: 如果是侵权案件，证明侵权行为的“实质”发生在香港。

• 总结来说，证明“香港是天然法庭”的过程，本质上就是做一个“以香港为中心”的FNC第一阶段分析。你需要说服法官，如果要在所有可能的诉讼地中选择一个最合适的，那毫无疑问就是香港。只有在这个基础上，你才能进一步论证对方在其他地方起诉的行为是“无理缠讼或压迫性的”。

• (2) the foreign proceedings are "vexatious or oppressive," for example, brought in bad faith or to frustrate the Hong Kong proceedings.
  (2) 外国诉讼程序是“无理取闹或压迫性的”，例如，出于恶意或为了阻挠香港诉讼而提起。

• Step 3: Check for Procedural Bars
  步骤三：检查程序性障碍

• Delay: The application must be made promptly. An order will not be granted if the plaintiff delayed too long, allowing the foreign proceedings to advance.
  延误：申请必须及时提出。如果原告拖延过久，导致外国诉讼程序已推进，将不会批准该命令。

• 例句: It is a well-established principle that a party seeking an ASI must act promptly. An unreasonable delay, particularly where it has allowed the foreign proceedings to advance to a significant stage, may lead a court to refuse the injunction.
  例句：寻求 ASI 的一方必须迅速行动，这是一个确立已久的原则。不合理的延迟，尤其是在该延迟使外国诉讼程序进入重要阶段的情况下，可能导致法院拒绝发出禁令。
• However, the question of whether a delay is fatal is highly fact-specific. A court will not merely look at the length of the delay, but will critically examine what occurred during that period.
  然而，延迟是否致命的问题高度依赖具体事实。法院不仅会考虑延迟的时间长度，还会严格审查该期间内发生的情况。
• In this case, HKF did not participate in or submit to the Russian proceedings during the eight-week period. Instead, the facts state that HKF was engaged in correspondence with VE's lawyers in a reasonable attempt to resolve the jurisdictional issue amicably and persuade VE to honour its contractual obligation without the need for further litigation in Hong Kong. This conduct is unlikely to be viewed by a court as acquiescence.
  在本案中，HKF 在八周期间内未参与或服从俄罗斯诉讼程序。相反，事实表明 HKF 正与 VE 的律师进行通信，合理尝试友好解决管辖权问题，并劝说 VE 履行其合同义务，无需在香港进行进一步诉讼。法院不太可能将此行为视为默认。
• Furthermore, there is no evidence on the facts that the Russian proceedings have substantially advanced or that VE has suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay. If VE has merely filed the claim and no significant steps have been taken, the argument that comity requires the Hong Kong court to stand back is significantly weakened. This situation is distinct from cases such as Sea Powerful II, where a delay was fatal because the foreign court had already invested significant resources and made substantive rulings.
  此外，事实并无证据表明俄罗斯诉讼程序已实质性推进，或 VE 因延误而遭受任何不利影响。如果 VE 仅仅是提起了诉讼而未采取重大步骤，那么基于礼让原则要求香港法院回避的论点将大大削弱。这种情况有别于 Sea Powerful II 等案件，在那些案件中，延误是致命的，因为外国法院已投入大量资源并作出实质性裁决。
• VE's only defence is the eight-week delay. However, as this period was spent in a reasonable, good-faith attempt to resolve the matter without court intervention, and in the absence of any evidence of prejudice to VE or significant advancement in the Russian proceedings, it is highly improbable that a Hong Kong court would consider this delay to be a bar to relief.
  VE 唯一的抗辩理由是八周的延误。然而，由于这段时间是在合理且善意地尝试解决问题而未诉诸法院的情况下度过，且没有任何证据显示 VE 遭受不利影响或俄罗斯诉讼程序有重大进展，香港法院极不可能认为该延误构成救济的障碍。

• Effectiveness: The order will only be effective if the defendant has assets or a presence in Hong Kong, as the penalty for breach is contempt of court (fine/imprisonment).
  效力：该命令仅在被告在香港拥有资产或存在的情况下有效，因为违反命令的处罚是藐视法庭（罚款/监禁）。
• No need to apply to the foreign court first: An applicant is not obliged to first ask the foreign court to stay its own proceedings. The correct approach is to apply directly for an ASI in the court specified in the EJC.
  无需先向外国法院申请：申请人无义务先请求外国法院中止其自身诉讼。正确的做法是直接向 EJC 指定的法院申请 ASI。

• “虽然你要检查是否存在拖延等障碍，但请注意，法律并不要求你必须先去外国法院尝试解决问题。你没有这个义务，所以对方不能因为你没有先去外国法院就反过来说你拖延了或者程序不当。”
• 对方的律师可能会辩称：“你为什么不先来我们俄罗斯的法院，申请中止诉讼呢？你直接跑去香港申请ASI，这是不尊重我们俄罗斯司法的行为！”
• 这时，香港的这条规则就赋予了你一个完美的回答：“对不起，根据香港法律，我没有义务先去外国法院申请。我完全有权利直接在EJC指定的香港法院寻求救济，要求你遵守合同约定。”