Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Companies ordinance s905

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2026

RANGER F & B SERVICE LTD v. LO YEE NOK

Citation

[2026] HKDC 299
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3216/2022

Although jurisdiction under s905 was engaged on the evidence of the plaintiff's limited resources, the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs because the plaintiff's claim was bona fide and an application made so late (shortly before trial and without prior indication) would cause real prejudice and could be abused by a forward-looking tactic; accordingly the defendant's summons was dismissed.
29 Dec 2025

數碼科技管理有限公司對佳定物業管理有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2178
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4228/2022

Court found defendant had adduced credible evidence that the plaintiff company, a HKD100 paid-up company owned through offshore entities, had no demonstrable trading activity, had refused repeated requests to disclose financial records and had provided an inaccurate registered address; plaintiff failed to prove the address omission was innocent. Although the application was late and some delay was attributable to the timing of a prior striking-out order, the judge exercised discretion to grant security after weighing prejudice and reduced the quantum to reflect delay. Accordingly the threshol…
23 Jul 2024

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL2/2016

Applications for security for costs were allowed because the plaintiffs, who are overseas and in liquidation, failed to demonstrate the very high threshold of a high degree of probability of success; the handwriting expert reports and CCTV recordings did not clearly or self-evidently undermine the judgments or satisfy the threshold; security was fixed at HK$750,000 for each application and costs were awarded against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis without a certificate for two counsel.
21 Oct 2022

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3237
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the court, having regard to all circumstances and the discretion under RHC O 23 r 1 and s905 CO, was satisfied the plaintiffs had a genuine and strong case of massive alleged fraud and misappropriation; ordering security would be unjust and oppressive as the plaintiffs' impecuniosity was substantially caused by the alleged wrongdoing; the defendant's contempt, absconding and US indictment further militated against ordering security.
19 May 2022

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. O.W. BUNKER CHINA LTD (in provisional liquidation) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA381/2015

The Court accepted the 2nd Defendant's credible evidence of the NEHL Group's insolvency and the resultant genuine risk that the Plaintiff would be unable to pay the 2nd Defendant's costs; the delay in bringing the application was explicable on the facts and not unduly prejudicial; accordingly security for costs was ordered from February 2022 to trial in a reduced amount (HK$4,000,000) to be paid into court within 28 days, and proceedings stayed until furnished.
28 Mar 2022

PERPETUAL WEALTH (HONG KONG) LTD v. BE SOLUTIONS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 888
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT42/2021

Although the judge was satisfied that the s905(1)(a) threshold was met on the evidence that D1 was a shelf company with nominal capital and a secretarial address, in the exercise of the court's discretion security for costs was refused because D1's counterclaim was in substance a defence arising from the same transaction and did not constitute an independent cross-claim that enlarged the ambit of the action; ordering security would be unjust and tantamount to requiring D1 to provide security before being allowed to defend.
29 Jul 2020

KEY SUCCESS (ASIA) LTD (formerly VENTURE PARTNER (ASIA) LTD v. CHEUNG KONG MACHINERY (HK) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 591
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ46/2019

The court found the defendant adduced credible evidence meeting the statutory threshold under s905 (plaintiff's minimal paid-up capital, scaled-down premises, and plaintiff's failure to disclose financial evidence) but exercised its discretion to refuse security because the defendant's counterclaim overlaps materially with the plaintiff's claim so the same issues will be litigated anyway, and because the defendant had earlier represented in case management documents that it would not seek security and gave no explanation for the change; accordingly the application for security (and leave out…
1 Aug 2018

HEALTHOLOGY HOLDINGS LTD v. WANG SHIYUN

Citation

[2018] HKDC 922
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2378/2016

The defendant had established a prima facie case under s905 based on credible evidence (nominal paid-up capital and lack of visible business operations), making the summons reasonable when issued; however the timing of the application was unsatisfactory, so costs were apportioned with the plaintiff ordered to pay 75% of the defendant’s recoverable costs, summarily assessed at HK$33,750.
13 May 2016

MARCUS PRAETORIUS AND OTHERS v. HEAD ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN LTD

Citation

MARCUS PRAETORIUS AND OTHERS v. HEAD ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1057/2013

The master’s order was correctly construed as a joint and several order for security for costs in the sum of HK$700,000; the defendant’s collective evidence met the threshold under Companies Ordinance s905 to shift the evidential burden to the 3rd plaintiff which did not discharge it; disclosure of the sanctioned payment was unnecessary and, in any event, would not have altered the exercise of the court’s discretion; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the security order upheld.
23 Mar 2016

HONG KONG FAR INFRARED RAYS ASSOCIATION LTD v. LAM HONG NAM

Citation

HONG KONG FAR INFRARED RAYS ASSOCIATION LTD v. LAM HONG NAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1963/2014

The application for security was dismissed because the third-party undertaking by German Pool, given by its director and supported by German Pool's audited and unaudited financial statements showing substantial assets and profits, was binding and sufficient to satisfy the court that the plaintiff would not be unable to pay the defendant's costs, so the court exercised its discretion not to order security.