Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment out

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2025

OON KIM KOH, the person appointed to represent the estate of KOH KIM CHAN, deceased v. QUEST INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1196
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6960/2019

Leave to appeal dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to show any palpable error or reasonable prospect of success; the Multiple Maturity Date Argument was unpleaded/late and would not have assisted; the promissory note was held to mature on 28 December 2013 and, alternatively, a deemed partial payment of AUD20,000 on 17 June 2016 restarted the limitation period under s23(3) Limitation Ordinance so the claims were within time; the security of HK$624,240 paid into court is to be paid out to the Plaintiff; indemnity costs awarded to Plaintiff.
16 May 2025

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2005
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL13/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because the Payment Out Decision to release RMB 180,000,000 was a lawful exercise of discretion within the generous ambit where reasonable disagreement was possible; relevant factors were considered and the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success.
30 Jan 2023

RIVER PLATE CO LTD v. TANG TUNG SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 262
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA476/2021

The judge found that D1 had arguable grounds of appeal and D2 had strong grounds; the judge formed a preliminary view that the appeal might be rendered nugatory because the Plaintiff may be unable to repay sums if the appeal succeeds; accordingly a stay of execution was justified and payment out of funds paid into court was adjourned to be dealt with on the appeal to avoid prejudice and risk of issue estoppel.
2 Jul 2021

YUM SIU WAH v. WONG CHI SHING

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI473/2018

Costs awarded to the plaintiff up to 9 January 2020 (the relevant sanctioned payment acceptance date); costs after that date awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis; refusal to tax costs on District Court scale; interest on defendant's costs awarded at judgment rate plus 2%; loss of earning capacity damages do not attract pre-judgment interest; interim payment to be applied against interest-bearing heads as at date of payment on a weighted pro rata basis; payment out to plaintiff refused for lack of satisfactory evidence of ability/willingness to pay costs; payment out to defendant all…
4 Sept 2020

HONG KONG KARAOKE LICENSING ALLIANCE LTD v. NEWAY MUSIC LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 736
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP131/2020

The court held that payment out under Order 22A r1(1) of monies already paid into court was within its jurisdiction, the order was not in substance an impermissible interim payment, the prior L Chan J rulings did not bar the payment out (no res judicata), and because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success leave to appeal was refused and the appeal without leave dismissed.
13 Aug 2020

AU KAI TO KAREL v. END USER TECHNOLOGY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 673
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV237/2017

The consent order treating the HK$4,400,000 as payment by both defendants created a security interest covering liabilities secured by the stay, including the contingency that only the 1st Defendant's liability is upheld; accordingly the court ordered payment out to the Plaintiff and refused release to the 2nd Defendant; there was no basis to limit the security to half the sum absent express provision.
16 Oct 2013

VIDHYA NATIVIVAT AND OTHERS v. VITOON NATIVIVAT

Citation

VIDHYA NATIVIVAT AND OTHERS v. VITOON NATIVIVAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV23/2013

Funds paid into court as security were to be applied first to the specified costs of the proceedings below (HK$324,654); the Court would not order payment out on account of a separate costs order of To J because money paid as security is designated and not plainly money standing to the payer's credit; taxation/assessment is required for appeal costs before payment out; accordingly only HK$324,654 was ordered paid out to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs must pay the Defendant's costs incurred after 17 September 2013.
11 Jan 2012

QI MIN LIANG AND OTHER v. NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK TRUSTEE LTD

Citation

QI MIN LIANG AND OTHER v. NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK TRUSTEE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2508/2003

The court found on the evidence that the sum paid into court represented Madam Ng's entitlement; the application was properly made pursuant to Yam J's order and was not a claim caught by limitation; the plaintiffs' objections and discovery application were misconceived and therefore the court allowed payment out and dismissed the discovery application.
16 Dec 2011

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. TAN SOON GIN GEORGE

Citation

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. TAN SOON GIN GEORGE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2005

Costs were assessed on a party-and-party basis with specific reductions to solicitors' time entries and counsel brief fees where excessive; applying Order 62 rule 28(2) and Practice Direction guidance the court allowed HK$651,800 for Lam on Tan's stay application (HCA2576/2005) and HK$17,333 for Lam on the payment out application (HCA2545/2005), with detailed justifications for each reduction.
16 Dec 2011

IRONWOOD OVERSEAS LTD v. LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG

Citation

IRONWOOD OVERSEAS LTD v. LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2545/2005

The court applied party-and-party principles to reduce excessive time and fee items while allowing necessary costs: solicitors' hourly rates were fixed at HK$4,000 (senior) and HK$2,200 (junior); specific time allowances for listed tasks were reduced; leading counsel MS's brief reduced to HK$400,000; JW's settling fee reduced and brief allowed; overall costs allowed to Lam were HK$651,800 for HCA2576/2005 and HK$17,333 for HCA2545/2005.