Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of costs

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2025

RE LIN YIFAN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 649
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV32/2025

The petitioner established impecuniosity and real risk of non‑enforceability; the debtor filed no rebuttal evidence or submissions and the grounds of appeal did not present strong countervailing factors; accordingly it was just to order security for costs of the appeal of HK$100,000 plus HK$60,000 for the security application, to be paid into court (total HK$160,000), with a stay of proceedings until payment and dismissal on default, and the debtor to pay the petitioner's costs of the application.
27 Apr 2022

TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 576
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/2021

Although the court was satisfied that the appellant demonstrated impecuniosity or that the respondent would face difficulty or delay in enforcing a costs order, the appellant advanced a sufficiently strong ground of appeal on a preliminary view (that he acted only as an officer/director and not as a co-employer) which operated as a countervailing factor; accordingly security for costs was not ordered and the summons for security for costs was dismissed.
21 Apr 2022

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO., LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2009

The court granted the appointment of receivers because the papers were properly served, the evidence established that without receivers there was no practical means to realise the assets to pay the substantial costs due to the plaintiff, and the application was otherwise well-founded subject to the plaintiff filing the stated undertaking/affirmation.
11 Oct 2021

RE CHU HOI YAN CANDY t/a CROSSO

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3066
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4325/2021

The debtor failed to comply with or set aside the statutory demand and did not produce evidence of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds; accordingly the debtor was deemed unable to pay under s6A(1)(a) and the court, satisfied with the creditor's proof and service, made a bankruptcy order under s9(2).
23 Aug 2018

LEUNG FOR WING v. LIU SHAOHUAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3578/2016

The ancillary relief/s17 proceedings were treated as separate "proceedings" for the purposes of s16C; although Mr Cheng was in substance a defendant/respondent, on a strict legal construction of s16C and binding authority in Common Luck the Court will not allow liability to the Director to be determined by going behind formal party designations where the applicant failed to rectify his formal status; accordingly Mr Cheng does not fall within s16C(1)(b)(i) or (ia) and his application is dismissed.
7 May 2018

CHINA REGION INSURANCE CO LTD v. LEONG FONG CHENG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 233
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/2016

Because the appeal was dismissed, the plaintiff's costs were taxed and the defendant failed to pay those taxed costs, the security for costs paid into court was properly released to the plaintiff's solicitor as a partial discharge of the defendant's liability for taxed costs; the defendant's summons for return of the security was dismissed.
18 Oct 2017

CHEN MEI HUAN v. SILVER FAITH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEN MEI HUAN v. SILVER FAITH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW111/2014

Despite some delay, it was just in all the circumstances to order Chen (a foreign plaintiff ordinarily resident in Macau with contested beneficial ownership and existing substantial judgment exposure) to provide security for costs up to conclusion of the proceedings; the appropriate quantum for prospective PTR/trial costs on the material before the court was fixed at HK$1,600,000, payment within 35 days, and until payment further proceedings against the 2nd and 3rd respondents are stayed (subject to Companies Judge); costs follow the event and a costs order nisi and summary assessment directi…
21 Aug 2017

CITIBANK, N.A. v. KCL CHEMICAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CITIBANK, N.A. v. KCL CHEMICAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2017

Security for costs was ordered because the 2nd defendant had no business or known assets in Hong Kong, failed to substantiate claimed PRC assets and subsidiary, creating a real risk of undue delay or expense in enforcing any costs order; the appeal was not shown to have such strong merits as to outweigh that risk; accordingly security of HK$150,000 was fixed and the 2nd defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application fixed at HK$83,452, to be paid within 21 days.
28 Apr 2017

LEE CHEE HO, JULEUS (aka LEE, JULEUS) v. SHE LIANZHEN, THE SOLE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 王秉歧, DECEASED

Citation

LEE CHEE HO, JULEUS (aka LEE, JULEUS) v. SHE LIANZHEN, THE SOLE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 王秉歧, DECEASED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV237/2016

On the evidence the appellant is impecunious or enforcement of a costs order would be difficult, he failed to produce supporting evidence of means, no countervailing factor (the appeal is at best weak) outweighs the need for security; accordingly security of HK$200,000 was a reasonable and proportionate order, with a stay until lodged and dismissal for default.
3 Mar 2017

ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)

Citation

ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP285/2016

Given the applicants' delay in seeking taxation beyond the one‑month limit, the court exercised its discretion under s67 LPO to impose a payment condition to do justice between the parties; on the facts (nature, duration and quantum of work and prior conduct indicating ability and offers to pay), a 40% interim payment of the total billed fees (less the HK$500,000 already paid on account) within the specified time was appropriate; estoppel not established; lifting the stay of arbitration was refused so arbitration remains stayed pending taxation outcome.