專屬管轄權條款是否限制股東法定權利？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Joseph Ghossoub v Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Limited and Others - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、關淑馨上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2017年7月21日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Joseph Ghossoub（小股東）持有第一答辯人Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Limited（一家於香港註冊成立的控股公司）20%股份。第一答辯人及其附屬公司在香港以外地區經營廣告業務。申請人根據《公司條例》（香港法例第622章）第724條提出呈請，指控答辯人行為不公平損害其權益，並要求強制收購其股份。答辯人則申請擱置（stay）香港的呈請，理由是股權買賣協議（SPA）和服務協議（SA）中的專屬司法管轄權條款規定，任何爭議應由英格蘭法院專屬管轄。原審法官駁回擱置申請，答辯人就此提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於：1. 專屬司法管轄權條款的範圍是否涵蓋申請人提出的不公平損害（unfair prejudice）申訴，特別是關於管理層排斥和Makdessi爭議的處理；2. 該專屬司法管轄權條款是否會限制（fetter）申請人根據《公司條例》提出的法定權利；3. 英格蘭法院是否能為申請人提供實質性司法補救（substantial justice）。答辯人認為條款應廣泛解釋，且不限制法定權利；申請人則認為條款不適用於非合約方及非合約性質的申訴，且會限制其法定權利。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，專屬司法管轄權條款的範圍不涵蓋申請人提出的管理層排斥和Makdessi爭議申訴，因為這些申訴並非純粹的合約性質，且與合約的關聯性不足。法庭重申，根據公共政策，專屬司法管轄權條款不能限制股東根據《公司條例》提出的法定權利，例如提出不公平損害呈請的權利。此外，由於英格蘭法院對香港註冊公司的不公平損害申訴沒有管轄權，也無法提供有效的補救措施，因此申請人無法在英格蘭法院獲得實質性司法補救。法庭認為，原審法官在行使自由裁量權時沒有錯誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例。關於專屬司法管轄權條款是否限制法定權利，法庭依據 In re Peveril Gold Mines Ltd [1898] 1 Ch 122 和 Re Greater Beijing Region Expressways Ltd [1999] 4 HKC 807 的原則，確認股東的法定權利不能被公司章程或私人協議所剝奪。法庭亦區分了仲裁協議與專屬司法管轄權條款在處理不公平損害呈請方面的差異，並指出 Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333 等仲裁案例不適用於本案情況。此外，法庭引用 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White (No 1) [1999] 2 VR 681 說明若指定外國法院無法提供有效補救，則構成不執行專屬管轄權條款的「強烈理由」。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回答辯人的上訴申請，維持原審法官不擱置香港呈請的決定。法庭頒布暫准命令，要求答辯人支付申請人就上訴許可申請及本次上訴的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了香港法院在處理涉及香港註冊公司的不公平損害呈請時的管轄權，即使存在專屬司法管轄權條款，該條款也不能限制股東的法定權利，特別是當指定的外國法院無法提供有效補救時。判決亦明確區分了仲裁協議與專屬司法管轄權條款在可仲裁性（arbitrability）方面的差異，指出仲裁案例不能直接套用於專屬司法管轄權條款的情況。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Joseph Ghossoub v Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Limited and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lam VP, Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 21 July 2017 ### Factual Background The petitioner, Joseph Ghossoub, a minority shareholder, holds 20% of the shares in the 1st respondent, Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Limited, a Hong Kong-incorporated holding company. The 1st respondent and its subsidiaries operate an advertising business outside Hong Kong. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 724 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) alleging unfair prejudice and seeking a buyout of his shares. The respondents applied to stay the Hong Kong petition, arguing that exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and Service Agreement (SA) mandated disputes be heard in English courts. The judge dismissed the stay application, and the respondents appealed. ### Key Legal Issues The key legal issues were: 1. Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clauses covered the petitioner's unfair prejudice complaints, particularly regarding exclusion from management and the handling of the Makdessi dispute; 2. Whether the clauses fettered the petitioner's statutory rights under the Companies Ordinance; and 3. Whether the English court could provide substantial justice to the petitioner. The respondents argued for a broad interpretation of the clauses and that they did not fetter statutory rights, while the petitioner contended the clauses did not apply to non-contracting parties or non-contractual claims and would indeed fetter his statutory rights. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the exclusive jurisdiction clauses did not cover the petitioner's complaints regarding exclusion from management and the Makdessi dispute, as these were not purely contractual and lacked sufficient connection to the contracts. The court reaffirmed that, based on public policy, exclusive jurisdiction clauses cannot fetter a shareholder's statutory rights, such as the right to bring an unfair prejudice petition. Furthermore, since the English court lacked jurisdiction over unfair prejudice claims concerning a Hong Kong-incorporated company and could not provide effective remedies, the petitioner would not obtain substantial justice there. The court found no error in the lower court's exercise of discretion. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Several cases were cited. Regarding whether exclusive jurisdiction clauses fetter statutory rights, the court relied on the principles from In re Peveril Gold Mines Ltd [1898] 1 Ch 122 and Re Greater Beijing Region Expressways Ltd [1999] 4 HKC 807, affirming that statutory rights cannot be removed by articles of association or private agreements. The court also distinguished arbitration agreements from exclusive jurisdiction clauses in handling unfair prejudice petitions, noting that arbitration cases like Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333 were not applicable. Commonwealth Bank of Australia v White (No 1) [1999] 2 VR 681 was cited to support that the unavailability of effective remedies in the nominated foreign court constitutes a "strong cause" not to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the respondents' appeal, upholding the lower court's decision not to stay the Hong Kong petition. The court made an order nisi for the respondents to pay the petitioner's costs for the leave to appeal application and the appeal itself. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the Hong Kong court's jurisdiction in unfair prejudice petitions involving Hong Kong-incorporated companies. It clarifies that exclusive jurisdiction clauses cannot override a shareholder's statutory rights, especially when the designated foreign court cannot provide effective remedies. The decision also distinguishes between arbitration agreements and exclusive jurisdiction clauses regarding arbitrability, indicating that arbitration precedents are not directly transferable to exclusive jurisdiction clause scenarios. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.