Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Funding of litigation

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2024

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1402/2020

Court concluded on summary view that Kwok, through HETCL and IIPDL, controlled and funded HJI’s litigation, consciously avoided meeting adverse costs by defaulting on security for costs and by steering litigation while HJI was insolvent, and therefore acted with a mindset that made it just and reasonable to impose personal joint and several liability for defendants’ costs; nisi non‑party costs order granted with timelines for taxation and certificate for two counsel.
18 Aug 2017

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. HUI CHI YUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. HUI CHI YUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1423/2015

The court allowed the defendants' appeal and ordered security for costs of HK$2,000,000 because the plaintiff, in compulsory liquidation, failed to rebut the presumption of insolvency by credible testimony; the liquidators did not satisfactorily show inability (as opposed to unwillingness) of backers to provide funds, the balancing exercise favoured defendants, the public interest factor was insufficient to outweigh the need to protect defendants, and there was no jurisdiction to order security against creditors or liquidators.
2 Jun 2015

BRUNO ARBOIT AS SOLE LIQUIDATOR OF HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

BRUNO ARBOIT AS SOLE LIQUIDATOR OF HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2749/2012

The summons was dismissed because it was unacceptably late and the defendants failed to establish that the liquidator acted as nominee for funders or that the settlement communications or timing of the new action made the committal proceedings abusive or against the public interest; funding by an interested creditor was not unusual, settlement communications were privileged, and the new action was legitimately founded on evidence from s221 proceedings and legal advice.
24 Nov 2014

CHU PO LING v. CHUNG CHUN SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHU PO LING v. CHUNG CHUN SHING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ32/2012

Although the 2nd defendant had substantially assisted and contributed to funding, the evidence showed familial assistance and no sufficient personal financial interest or control so as to render him the 'real party' to litigation; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to order him to pay the plaintiff's costs under s 53(2); he was joined for costs purposes only and the summons for costs against him was dismissed.
2 Apr 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON) also known as KASIKORNBANK PUBLIC CO LTD

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON) also known as KASIKORNBANK PUBLIC CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2008

The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs but reduced the quantum sought by the bank, fixing security at $3,000,000 because the amount claimed by the bank was excessive in light of the predominantly legal issues, the likely costs of a five‑day appeal, the prior trial length, and the unusual factor that the appellant is a company in liquidation funded by unknown overseas funders; the court ordered stay until lodgment and dismissal on default.
10 May 2005

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BENEFIT HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BENEFIT HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA810/2003

The court refused the defendants' application for security for costs because, although the plaintiff is impecunious, the judge found the plaintiff had a very high probability of success on part of the claim for HK$2,000,000; that strong prospect meant in the exercise of discretion security would be refused and the application dismissed, with an order nisi for defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
12 Jun 1996

In re Esquire (Electronics) Ltd.

Citation

In re Esquire (Electronics) Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/1996

The Court affirmed the winding-up order and dismissed the appeal because the petitioning creditors were entitled to a winding-up order ex debito justitiae, the appellants produced no concrete or acceptable funding proposal to justify staying or rescinding the order, the exceptional doctrine in In re L.H.F. Wools did not apply, and the judge did not err in exercising his discretion to refuse an indefinite adjournment or stay.

Hong Kong Case Law

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) v. HUI CHI YUNG AND OTHERS

BRUNO ARBOIT AS SOLE LIQUIDATOR OF HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

CHU PO LING v. CHUNG CHUN SHING AND ANOTHER

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON) also known as KASIKORNBANK PUBLIC CO LTD

WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BENEFIT HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

In re Esquire (Electronics) Ltd.