Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Oppression in litigation

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2010

LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

Citation

LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC120/2007

The judge found on the evidence that the plaintiff fabricated the alleged 3rd accident and that the proceedings were oppressive; therefore exercised discretion to award costs to the defendant to be taxed on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel; refused enhanced interest because the sanctioned payment was made within 28 days of trial and there was no agreement on costs so O.22 r.23(4) did not apply.
21 Feb 2001

GOARM ENGINEERING LTD v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

GOARM ENGINEERING LTD v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT21/1999

Application for security for costs dismissed because defendant failed to show by credible testimony that plaintiff would be unable to pay costs; plaintiff demonstrated some prospects of success and bona fides; making the order would risk oppression and stifling a valid claim especially given prior adverse procedural rulings against defendant and the inability of plaintiff to seek equivalent security on its counterclaim against a foreign defendant.