Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 59 rule 10(5)

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2017

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

Citation

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV198/2016

Special circumstances under Order 59 r 10(5) were established: plaintiffs probably unable to pay costs and the 1st plaintiff was pursuing in a nominal capacity; merits did not provide countervailing force. Accordingly security for costs of the appeal was ordered in the sum of $400,000 to be paid into court, with the appeal stayed until payment and dismissal if payment not made; costs of the application were awarded to the 1st defendant ($160,000).
1 Nov 2016

DANA SHIPPING AND TRADING SA v. SINO CHANNEL ASIA LTD

Citation

DANA SHIPPING AND TRADING SA v. SINO CHANNEL ASIA LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2016

Although special circumstances (overseas residence and evidence of impecuniosity) were present, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs because countervailing factors — notably the special nature of enforcement proceedings for international arbitral awards, the statutory and rule framework requiring the award debtor to provide substantive security, and established authority reluctant to impose security on foreign award creditors — outweighed the factors relied on by the respondent; the applicant's impecuniosity alone was insufficient and the applicant's appeal was reas…
10 Dec 2015

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS

Citation

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2015

Application dismissed. No special circumstances existed to justify security against 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants because the Hong Kong assets frozen by the Mareva injunction (approx USD21m) are sufficient to meet any costs liability and a Mareva injunction does not equate to giving the plaintiff proprietary security; section 905 did not assist. The 3rd defendant's appeal was not an abuse of process given the plaintiff's acceptance she should recover 100% of substantive costs. Plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs; defendants' costs assessed at HK$70,000.
23 Mar 2000

NEW TECHNOLOGY CABLE LTD. v. POPBRIDGE INDUSTRIAL LTD.

Citation

NEW TECHNOLOGY CABLE LTD. v. POPBRIDGE INDUSTRIAL LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2000

The application was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that the appellant would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if unsuccessful: despite cash flow issues there was uncontradicted evidence of a highly profitable business and ability to meet ordinary expenses and the previously awarded judgment; absence of audited accounts was not sufficient to found an order for security for costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

DANA SHIPPING AND TRADING SA v. SINO CHANNEL ASIA LTD

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS

NEW TECHNOLOGY CABLE LTD. v. POPBRIDGE INDUSTRIAL LTD.