EYE CO LTD v. CHRISTIES’S HONG KONG LT EYE CO LTD v. CHRISTIES’S HONG KONG LTD

HCA 1844/2024

[2026] HKCFI 2956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1844 OF 2024

____________

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The Plaintiff seeks to transfer this action to the Commercial List.

2.  There is a degree – perhaps even a substantial degree – of overlap as to the types of matters which may be suitable for placing in the General List and the Commercial List.

3.  Thus if every case that had a “commercial” element were to be transferred to the Commercial List, this would clog up the List and prevent the prompt and efficient resolution of commercial disputes: China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Ltd (in liquidation) and another v. UBS AG and another [2023] 4 HKLRD 145 at [13] (Au-Yeung J).

4.  In the present case, the nub of the dispute between the parties is the Plaintiff’s complaint that whilst it asked for proper advertisement and exposure of its necklace prior to it being auctioned by the Defendant, and that the Defendant represented that it would do so, the Defendant in fact failed to properly promote and publicise the necklace before the auction, and allowed it to be sold at an undervalue.

5.  With respect, the issues do not involve any particular point of importance or interest relating to trade or commerce, but rather, turn on what was or was not said between the parties and promised by the Defendant.

6.  Mr Hart seeks to transfer the action so as to obtain tighter case management. However, insofar as there are concerns about dilatoriness on the part of the Defendant, these can be raised with the Master.

7.  I therefore decline to transfer the action. I dismiss the summons.