KEENACT LTD AND OTHERS v. ELENA SIIVINEN (formerly known as ELENA IGOREVNA ROMANOVA) AND OTHERS

HCA 1498/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1498 OF 2024

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  On 7 March 2025, I ordered that the ex parte injunction order given by the duty judge on 29 July 2024 be set aside, and all further proceedings in this action be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. I also dismissed the plaintiffs’ summons of 30 July 2024.

2.  On 21 March 2025, the plaintiffs filed a summons for leave to appeal on grounds set out in a draft Notice of Appeal, which I have read.

3.  I have also read the skeleton submissions of the plaintiffs and of the 1^st defendant, and I have considered the oral submissions of Mr Sussex for the plaintiffs (who did not appear before me previously) and Mr Wood for the 1^st defendant.

4.  I do not think this is an appropriate case for the grant of leave to appeal. In respect of the grounds based on O.11 and O.12 r.8(1) or r.8(2) RHC,

(1)  the marginal note of the 1^st defendant’s summons of 7 October 2024 only indicated O.12 r.8, without specifying r.8(2),

(2)  para. 2 of that summons sought a “declaration that ... the Court has no jurisdiction over the 1^st defendant ...”, indicating that she was relying on r.8(1) not r.8(2),

(3)  para. 4 of that summons included the ground that “the plaintiffs cannot rely on any of the jurisdictional gateways under Order 11, rule 1 ...”, and

(4)  para. 3 of that summons sought an order that alternatively, all further proceedings be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Accordingly, when in the course of oral submissions, Mr Wood abandoned the jurisdictional challenge, it did not seem to me that r.8(1) or r.8(2) was a live issue.

5.  Be that as it may, the more important point is that, as recognized by Mr Sussex in his submissions [§12], the test I applied for staying the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens was actually more favourable to his clients, as the burden was placed on the 1^st defendant: see para 40(1) of my Decision.

6.  As for the rest of the grounds, it is well established that an exercise of discretion would generally not be overturned on appeal. The draft Notice of Appeal does not seek to challenge the findings that there was a lack or urgency or secrecy, that there had been material non-disclosure, and there was no evidence of risk of dissipation of assets. Nor does it challenge the finding that the primary issue was whether there was the alleged relationship between the 5^th plaintiff and the 1^st defendant, which issue would be best decided by a Russian judge seeing and hearing the two protagonists give evidence in their native tongue. In a case such as this, the importance of their oral evidence goes to the heart of the dispute, and goes far beyond a matter of “mere practical convenience” in receiving evidence without the need for translation. As Mr Wood put it in his submissions [§14.4], the fact that the transfers occurred is not disputed. Rather, the reason(s) for such transfers is what is in contention.

7.  I do not see a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal, nor (out of an abundance of caution) do I see any other reason why the matter should be brought to the Court of Appeal. I decline to give leave, and I would also decline to order a stay. As the evidence showed no risk of dissipation, in the absence of any change of circumstances, the plaintiffs have not shown that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not ordered.

8.  The plaintiffs’ summons of 21 March 2025 is dismissed, with costs to the 1^st defendant with certificate for two counsel, to be summarily assessed. (The 1^st defendant to lodge her statement of costs within 3 days, and the plaintiffs to lodge any statement of objections within 3 days thereafter).