Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ordinary residence of company

Legal area

Court

5 May 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA256/2014

The plaintiff was found ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong (central management and control in Singapore); although the plaintiff had some Hong Kong assets and reciprocal enforcement in Singapore exists, those assets were not fixed or readily available for costs and reciprocity was not determinative; the defendant had delayed and the application was not cost‑effective so, balancing all circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to refuse an order for security for costs.
30 Sept 2011

HUI YIN SANG AND OTHERS v. TSOI PING KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HUI YIN SANG AND OTHERS v. TSOI PING KWAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA392/2008

The judge lawfully exercised discretion by considering all relevant factors and did not err in declining to order security for costs against the 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs; however leave to appeal was granted on whether the Plaintiffs are nominees and unable to pay costs because the appeal on facts could be more than fanciful; costs orders were varied and the striking‑out application succeeded in part by confining the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs' claims to those identified by the amendments.
30 Jul 2002

SKYRIVER (B.V.I.) LTD. & ANOTHER v. SHOUGANG HOLDING (HK) LTD.

Citation

SKYRIVER (B.V.I.) LTD. & ANOTHER v. SHOUGANG HOLDING (HK) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17196/1999

The 1st plaintiff was held to be ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong based on its BVI registration, registered office, lack of assets or business in Hong Kong, absence of evidence of central management in Hong Kong and appointment of a Hong Kong agent; accordingly the court had jurisdiction to order security for costs and, exercising its discretion, reduced the quantum of security to HK$500,000 payable by the 1st plaintiff (up to discovery and exchange of witness statements).
18 Jul 2001

Winvar Investment Inc. v. Southern Mark Ltd.

Citation

Winvar Investment Inc. v. Southern Mark Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4768/2001

Plaintiff, a BVI company, failed to demonstrate that its central management and control is in Hong Kong or to provide evidence of available unencumbered Hong Kong assets; the court therefore exercised its discretion to order security for costs against the non-resident plaintiff and fixed the amount at HK$220,000 to be paid into court within 56 days, with the action stayed pending payment and to be struck out if not paid, costs in the cause and certificate for counsel.

Hong Kong Case Law

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

HUI YIN SANG AND OTHERS v. TSOI PING KWAN AND OTHERS

SKYRIVER (B.V.I.) LTD. & ANOTHER v. SHOUGANG HOLDING (HK) LTD.

Winvar Investment Inc. v. Southern Mark Ltd.