Hong Kong’s government has summoned the Panamanian consul-general to express strong opposition to a Panama Supreme Court ruling that annulled a major port contract held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings.

The decision, which affects the operation of two strategic terminals at the entrances of the Panama Canal, has sparked diplomatic friction and drawn warnings from Beijing about potential repercussions for Panama’s investment climate.

The summons was issued by Hong Kong’s Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Algernon Yau Ying-wah, who met Panama’s consul-general, Jose Ramon de Jesus Varela Fabrega, to convey “strong dissatisfaction and opposition” to last week’s court decision.

Mr Yau emphasised that CK Hutchison’s Panama Ports Company had invested heavily and created jobs over many years, and he criticised the ruling for damaging Panama’s credibility, business environment and economic development.

He also urged Panama to uphold fair treatment and protection for lawful foreign investors operating in the country.

The court had found the port concession unconstitutional on grounds that the contract granted exclusive privileges, lacked required environmental assessments and did not serve the public interest, effectively voiding nearly three decades of operations by the Hong Kong firm.

CK Hutchison has responded by launching international arbitration proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce to challenge the ruling and seek compensation or other remedies.

The dispute has complicated a broader $23 billion plan for the conglomerate to sell its global port assets, including the Panama facilities, to a consortium led by U.S. investment firm BlackRock, while heightening geopolitical sensitivities amid U.S. and Chinese interests in global trade routes.

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has defended the court’s independence and reiterated that Panama will not be intimidated by foreign threats, even as he outlined transitional arrangements to maintain port operations.

The diplomatic exchange signals broader tensions over investment protections and legal certainty for international companies in cases where strategic infrastructure intersects with national constitutional and economic policy priorities.