Golden Meditech Stem Cells (BVI) Company Limited (Respondent) v Blue Ocean Creation Investment Hong Kong Ltd and another (Appellants) (Virgin Islands)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0037

Jurisdiction

British Virgin Islands

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Blue Ocean Creation Investment Hong Kong Limited (2) Blue Ocean Structure Investment Company Limited

Respondent(s)

Golden Meditech Stem Cells (BVI) Company Limited

Issue

Should fresh evidence be admitted on an interlocutory appeal where that evidence is a judgment of a foreign court which postdates the original hearing date?

Facts

This appeal is part of a multi-jurisdictional litigation between the parties for control of Global Cord Blood Corporation (“GCBC”), a valuable company listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2009. The respondent (“GMSC”) was once the owner of certain shares in GCBC. The appellants’ (together “the Applicant Companies”) case is that these shares were sold to the Ying Peng Fund, which indirectly controls the applicant companies. They argue that the Ying Peng Fund became the beneficial owner of GCBC through the second appellant (“Blue Ocean BVI”) having acquired 65.4% of the total issued ordinary voting shares in or about January 2018. GMSC admits that there was a sale, but it contends that the full price was not paid. Its position is that the outstanding amount was treated as a loan, which was secured by two share charges. GMSC says that this arrangement is supported by a loan document and two charge documents executed on behalf of the applicant companies by Mr Xu, a director and authorised signatory of both companies. Mr Xu denies signing those documents and the Applicant Companies contend that the loan and share charge documents are forgeries. In 2022, the Applicant Companies filed an application in the BVI Court seeking orders restraining GMSC from taking any steps on the alleged charge over the shares in Blue Ocean BVI and seeking a declaration that both alleged share charges were invalid. Expert evidence demonstrated that the signatures on the share charged documents were forgeries. The respondent sought to re-amend its defence to contend that, even if Mr Xu did not sign his name, the signature was applied on his behalf with the requisite authority, such that the contracts were valid. In response, the Applicant Companies applied for summary judgment on 17th February 2023. The judge granted summary judgment to the Applicant Companies and dismissed GMSC’s re-amendment application. The judge stated, however, that there was a triable issue in relation to whether there was any outstanding consideration due in respect of the purchase of the GCBC shares (“the Debt Issue”). He found that this did not preclude him from granting summary judgment. GMSC appealed. The Applicant Companies filed a counter notice appealing the judge’s finding that the Debt Issue was a triable issue. The Applicant Companies also filed an application to adduce fresh evidence, in the form of a judgment from the High Court of Hong Kong (“the HK Judgment”) involving GMSC’s parent company. This contained a finding that GMSC’s claim that there had been a default on payments for GCBC’s shares was unsubstantiated. The Applicant Companies argue that this is a judicial finding, which gives rise to an issue estoppel in relation to the Debt Issue in the present appeal. The Court of Appeal issued two judgments. First, it refused permission to admit the HK Judgment (“the Fresh Evidence Decision”). Secondly, it allowed GMSC’s appeal against the summary judgment order and remitted the case to trial before the High Court (“the Summary Judgment Decision”). The Applicant Companies now appeal to the His Majesty in Council. Permission to appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal against the Fresh Evidence Decision on one limited ground of appeal. Permission to appeal was refused against the Summary Judgment Decision. The applicant companies renew their application for permission to appeal to his Majesty in Council against the Fresh Evidence Decision. The applicant companies also seek permission to amend their notice of appeal to rely on additional grounds of appeal. These additional grounds of appeal relate to both the Fresh Evidence Decision and the Summary Judgment Decision.

Date of issue

11 May 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top