Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim overlap

Legal area

Court

20 Jan 2026

KITAHARA HONG KONG CO., LTD v. CHENG KAM WAH GRACE

Citation

[2026] HKDC 102
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ139/2022

Having reheard the matter, the court found security for costs justified given the plaintiff's foreign residence, cessation of business and adverse financial indicators; the master's quantum of HK$250,000 was too low while the defendant's demand was manifestly excessive, and on a broad brush assessment the just quantum is HK$400,000; accordingly the appeal was allowed, the master's order set aside and the plaintiff ordered to pay HK$400,000 into court within 28 days or face dismissal of its claim with costs taxed to the defendant.
19 Jan 2017

SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN

Citation

SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3075/2015

Security for costs in the sum of $2,000,000.00 was ordered and the claim stayed until security is provided because the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong with no disclosed Hong Kong assets, enforcement of a costs order abroad would be difficult and costly, and the overlap between claim and counterclaim is limited such that ordering security would not be tantamount to providing security for the defendant's counterclaim; the amount ordered excluded costs attributable to counterclaim limbs and was set on a broad‑brush assessment of the defendant's likely costs.
24 Dec 2008

YANG WEI JENNIFER AND ANOTHER v. HSBC PRIVATE TRUSTEE (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

YANG WEI JENNIFER AND ANOTHER v. HSBC PRIVATE TRUSTEE (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5073/2001

Because the plaintiffs are ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, have limited disclosed assets in Hong Kong and enforcement against a US resident would cause delay and cost, and because plaintiffs' claims and defendants' defences are both reasonably arguable (so security is justified as a protective measure), the court exercised its discretion to order security on a party-and-party basis of HK$3,000,000 for the High Court Action and HK$1,200,000 for the Probate Action, stayed proceedings until payment, and ordered dismissal if security not provided; overlap of counterclaim did not make an or…
23 Aug 2006

DICKSON YOGA CO LTD v. WE ARE ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

DICKSON YOGA CO LTD v. WE ARE ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1132/2006

Defendant failed to adduce credible prima facie evidence that the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs under s.357; furthermore, the overlapping counterclaim and evidence of the plaintiff's recurring income and payment history justified refusal to exercise the court's residual discretion to order security for costs, therefore the summons for security for costs was dismissed.
1 Dec 2005

SUCCESS WISE LTD v. DYNAMIC (B.V.I.) LTD

Citation

SUCCESS WISE LTD v. DYNAMIC (B.V.I.) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1463/2004

The defendant failed to meet the s.357 threshold because there was insufficient credible evidence that the plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendant's costs (notwithstanding the plaintiff's modest paid up capital), and having regard to the plaintiff's receipt of substantial payments and the absence of evidence of insolvency the court lacked jurisdiction to order security; alternatively, if jurisdiction existed the discretionary factors (notably substantial overlap between claim and counterclaim and that the defendant is effectively an attacker) warranted refusal to order security; accord…

Hong Kong Case Law

KITAHARA HONG KONG CO., LTD v. CHENG KAM WAH GRACE

SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN

YANG WEI JENNIFER AND ANOTHER v. HSBC PRIVATE TRUSTEE (HONG KONG) LTD

DICKSON YOGA CO LTD v. WE ARE ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT LTD

SUCCESS WISE LTD v. DYNAMIC (B.V.I.) LTD