Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bank guarantee

Legal area

Court

16 May 2025

LIM YEW CHENG (suing in a personal capacity and derivatively on behalf of himself as a shareholder of KENORA CORPORATION LTD) AND OTHERS v. COSIMO BORRELLI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1976/2023

The Master did not err and his costs order was reasonable: Plaintiffs failed to negotiate adequate security and ignored a reasonable offer, thereby justifying the award of costs to Defendants; the appeal\u2019s costs are awarded to Defendants and to be taxed if not agreed.
29 Mar 2023

DAILY TECH HONGKONG CO LTD v. iADVANTAGE LIMITED

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 891
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1415/2022

Higher interlocutory standard applied because the injunction would effectively determine the action; plaintiff failed to establish a clear and unequivocal representation or sufficient detrimental reliance to found waiver/estoppel; plaintiff could not demonstrate ability to provide the required bank guarantee or equivalent security or show that reasonable notice had not cured any retraction; relief from forfeiture was not available because plaintiff could not make good the default; damages were not shown to be inadequate; therefore interlocutory injunction refused and costs ordered against pla…
13 Jan 2021

CHARM MASTER ENTERPRISES LTD v. GRAND T G GOLD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2011

The court refused the stay and refused to extend time because the 1st Defendant failed to show strong prospects of success that would justify a stay; the Deputy High Court Judge’s imposition of the HK$12,000,000 condition fell within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement; the 1st Defendant produced no properly affirmed evidence to justify an extension or a bank guarantee in lieu; therefore the summons was dismissed and costs awarded to the 2nd Defendant.
6 Oct 2014

CEP LTD v. 無鍚市佳誠太陽能科技有限公司

Citation

CEP LTD v. 無鍚市佳誠太陽能科技有限公司
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/2014

The court exercised its discretion to fix security for costs at $442,030 after rejecting both parties' estimates as unrealistic, allowing assessed amounts for the security application costs, solicitors' fees, counsel fees (allowing a single reasonably competent counsel fee of $200,000), and disbursements, and ordered lodgement of that sum as security with stay and dismissal consequences if not complied with.
29 Aug 2013

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO.,LTD v. UBAF (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO.,LTD v. UBAF (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA175/2012

Defendant failed to prove sufficient justification to depart from the established Usual Rate; the 2012 US$ loan was at a preferential public export credit rate and did not reflect market borrowing cost; the court therefore awarded pre-judgment interest at HSBC prime rate plus 1% from 28 December 2011 to date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate and awarded costs of the related applications to the plaintiff.
4 Jul 2012

KONE ELEVATOR (H.K.) LTD v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

KONE ELEVATOR (H.K.) LTD v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1898/2008

Kone was guilty of malpractice (i.e. breach) only in respect of the items it expressly admitted; the remaining alleged defects were not proven or were outside Kone's contractual responsibility; Clause 30 permitted Citybase to deduct a 'sum in dispute' from the Performance Bond and SCB was entitled to pay on that basis, but Citybase must account and repay any overdrawn amount once the dispute is resolved — accordingly Kone succeeds in restitution and is awarded HK$654,260 (the bond draw of HK$771,400 less proven rectification costs HK$117,140), with interest and costs.
8 Nov 2011

ATAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. STRATECH SYSTEMS LTD

Citation

ATAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. STRATECH SYSTEMS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV125/2011

Special circumstances to justify security for costs were not established: reciprocal enforcement exists with Singapore, the applicant did not prove the extra time and expense would be undue, and the appellant's financial position did not demonstrate significant risk of non‑enforcement; therefore security for costs was refused.
18 Aug 2011

ZHUHAI INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINALS (JIUZHOU) LTD v. LO TONG HOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZHUHAI INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINALS (JIUZHOU) LTD v. LO TONG HOI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA932/2009

The 2000 Personal Guarantee was construed as securing obligations arising under the specific 2000 Tariff Agreement to which it was attached; it therefore expired with that tariff agreement and did not operate as an open-ended security beyond the agreement's scope. The alleged oral agreement that the HK$1,000,000 bank guarantee would supersede the personal guarantees was not proved and therefore did not discharge the personal guarantee.
31 Aug 2009

LAU KING TING KATIE v. CHENG MIU HAR STELLA AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU KING TING KATIE v. CHENG MIU HAR STELLA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV100/2009

A 21‑day extension to provide the bank guarantee was granted because the appellant had actively attempted to obtain the guarantee but was thwarted by bank refusals, and the short extension caused no prejudice given the hearing date; however the application was unnecessary and unconsented so the appellant must pay the costs of making the application though there is no other order as to costs today.
28 Jul 2009

LAU KING TING KATIE v. CHENG MIU HAR STELLA AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU KING TING KATIE v. CHENG MIU HAR STELLA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV100/2009

Given the appellant’s impecuniosity and the respondents’ strong case on appeal (including trial finding of forgery), the court ordered security for costs of HK$500,000 to be provided by lodgement or an approved bank guarantee by 28 August 2009, stayed the appeal until lodgement and provided that failure to comply will result in dismissal of the appeal upon certificate; costs of the appeal to be taxed if the appeal is dismissed and costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.