Columbia Pictures Corporation LTD v Wanda Kids Cultural Development Co, LTD

Service of foreign proceedings in Hong Kong is not confined to the procedure in Order 69 of the Hong Kong Rules of the High Court. That procedure applies where the Registrar receives the written request specified by the rule; it is not an exhaustive code governing every form of foreign process. Article 19 of the Hague Service Convention preserves methods of transmission permitted by the internal law of the receiving state. Accordingly, where Hong Kong law permits service on a company by leaving a document at its registered office, that method may validly be used for foreign proceedings, subject to the Convention and the prohibition on service contrary to local law.

Columbia Pictures Corporation Ltd served claim documents on Wanda Kids Cultural Development Co., Ltd at the defendant’s registered office in Hong Kong. The claim concerned an alleged failure to pay USD 49 million under an option agreement. The defendant applied for a declaration that service was invalid.

The parties agreed that service out of the jurisdiction was permitted under CPR 6.33(2B)(b), and that validity under CPR 6.40 turned on whether the method used was permitted by Hong Kong law. The central issue was whether the Hague Service Convention and Order 69 of the Hong Kong Rules of the High Court required service through the Registrar and Central Authority, or whether service at the registered office was available under section 827 of the Companies Ordinance.

1. Application dismissed. Leaving the claim documents by hand at the defendant company’s registered office was a valid method of service under Hong Kong law.
2. The Hague Service Convention applied. It was exclusive as to the available Convention channels where transmission for service abroad was required, but Article 19 preserved methods of transmission permitted by the internal law of a contracting state. The Convention’s alternative channels had no hierarchy of importance, and service could not be effected contrary to the law of the state of destination.
3. Hong Kong’s objection to Articles 10(b) and 10(c) concerned documents transmitted through official channels. It did not object to every method of transmission outside the Central Authority procedure. The available material also supported the conclusion that solicitors or private agents could effect service without using the Hong Kong government or judiciary.
4. Order 69 rule 2 was conditional rather than exhaustive. On its natural reading, the Order was engaged if the Registrar received the specified written request. It then regulated the resulting Central Authority procedure. Nothing in its wording made it mandatory whenever foreign process was served in Hong Kong, including process from non-Convention states.
5. Section 827 of the Companies Ordinance permitted a document to be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, its registered office. Section 831 extended “document” to material issued for legal proceedings, and the Ordinance imposed no restriction limiting the provision to domestic proceedings. Section 827 therefore applied to the claim documents.
6. The court rejected the submission that service of foreign process should be treated as an exercise of exorbitant jurisdiction. In light of Abela v Baadarani, the traditional sovereignty-based approach was outdated. The court also declined to adjourn the application for determination by the Hong Kong courts.

The court was satisfied on the expert evidence as to Hong Kong law and ordered that the application be dismissed. Costs were reserved for agreement or further submissions.

not stated in the judgment.