BORROWER v. LENDER

BORROWER v. LENDER

The Court held it has jurisdiction under Order 23 RHC to order security in arbitration-related proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance; applying the statutory discretionary factors the Court found the Applicant was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, produced no credible evidence of assets or means in Hong...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3197
Parties
Applicant: BORROWER; Respondent: LENDER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 July 2025
Case Number
HCCT146/2024
Procedural Posture
Setting Aside Arbitral Award (section 81 Arbitration Ordinance) and Related Security Summons / Decision on Security for Costs Application at Hearing of Originating Summons and Security Summons
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; Applicant required to furnish security or Originating Summons will be dismissed; costs of Security Summons awarded against Applicant
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Public Policy, Ordinary Residence/central Management of Company, Order 23 RHC, Section 905 Companies Ordinance, Tribunal Case Management
Source Language
en
Arbitration Civil Procedure Companies Law Costs Security for Costs Setting Aside Arbitral Award Enforcement of Arbitral Award Public Policy +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BORROWER

Applicant

LENDER

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Setting Aside Arbitral Award (section 81 Arbitration Ordinance) and Related Security Summons / Decision on Security for Costs Application at Hearing of Originating Summons and Security Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to order security for costs under Order 23 RHC in proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs against the Applicant (factors: plaintiff's residence, assets in jurisdiction, merits, conduct and enforceability)
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant was denied fair hearing/unable to present its case in the arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held it has jurisdiction under Order 23 RHC to order security in arbitration-related proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance; applying the statutory discretionary factors the Court found the Applicant was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, produced no credible evidence of assets or means in Hong Kong, had obstructive conduct in the arbitration creating real risk of non-enforcement, and the setting aside challenge was not manifestly strong; accordingly security of HK$1.5 million was ordered and related procedural and costs directions made.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; Applicant required to furnish security or Originating Summons will be dismissed; costs of Security Summons awarded against Applicant

Orders

  • Applicant to provide security in the sum of HK$1,500,000
  • Paragraphs 1 to 4 of Security Summons ordered with paragraph 3 amended to provide for dismissal of the Originating Summons without further notice if security is not provided in accordance with the order