6 Nov 2019
The summons for further security for costs was dismissed because the defendants failed to prove enforcement difficulties in Singapore; the evidence relied on (an unrelated prior enforcement timeline) was insufficient to show typical or exceptional enforcement obstacles, and the burden to justify security was not discharged.
22 Apr 2016
Defendant proved on the balance of probabilities that plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction (in Singapore) and, exercising the court's discretion under Order 23 r 1 RHC to ensure a fund within the jurisdiction for enforcement of costs, the court ordered security for costs of HK$2,000,000 to be paid into court, stayed the proceedings pending payment and ordered plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of HK$190,000.
8 Jul 2015
Security for costs was justified and ordered because plaintiff was ordinarily resident abroad with no assets in Hong Kong, claimed impecuniosity was not proved to the high threshold required to show the claim would be stifled, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a high degree of probability of success or that non-disclosure would have led the court in 1970 to make a substantially different order, and enforcement in Germany was not shown to be impracticable; on a broad‑brush assessment HK$1.5 million was an appropriate quantum for security up to the Pre‑Trial Review.