Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reciprocal enforcement of judgments

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2024

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 878
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV182/2022

For the Ordinance to apply, the parties to the specified contract must have a 'choice of Mainland court agreement' within the meaning of s3(2) which, judged by Hong Kong law and the statutory text and purpose, requires the relevant contract or documents between the parties to specify the Mainland court(s) in writing; a jurisdictional provision that only applies to the subsidiary contract by the operation or effect of the governing law, and not by agreement or evidence between the parties to that contract, does not satisfy s3(2). Consequently the BHPC Judgment was not registrable under s5(2).
18 Sept 2023

EXCLUSIVE NETWORKS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. WAKOON TRADING (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1072
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV424/2022

The 2nd defendant discharged the burden of showing likely difficulty or expense in enforcing a costs order against the foreign plaintiff; the plaintiff's appeal is reasonably arguable but not so meritorious as to displace the need for security; accordingly security for costs was ordered in the reduced amount of HK$350,000 and the appeal was stayed until payment, with dismissal in default and costs awarded to the 2nd defendant.
6 Sept 2022

DU GUORONG v. BANK OF CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA467/2017

The Master found the plaintiff ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that the security would stifle the claim, and the defendants lawfully demonstrated that enforcement of Hong Kong costs orders in the PRC cannot be assumed given the absence of a written choice‑of‑court agreement and that the 2019 Arrangement is not yet in force or implemented; accordingly further security for costs is payable and the quantum and costs of the application are to be determined at a further hearing.
4 Mar 2020

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD v. WISDOM TOP INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA278/2019

Clause 34.1 is exclusive only insofar as it obliges the defendant (Wisdom Top) to sue in Hong Kong but is not exclusive insofar as it permits the plaintiff (ICBC) to sue elsewhere; because the lender's ability to sue outside Hong Kong defeats the statutory requirement of an agreement to the exclusion of other courts under s.3(1) Cap 597, the jurisdiction clause is not a 'choice of Hong Kong court agreement' for purposes of the Ordinance and the Registrar's refusal to certify is upheld.
6 Nov 2019

CHRISTINE RUTH ONG CHAI HOON AND OTHERS v. LAM KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2772
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1793/2012

The summons for further security for costs was dismissed because the defendants failed to prove enforcement difficulties in Singapore; the evidence relied on (an unrelated prior enforcement timeline) was insufficient to show typical or exceptional enforcement obstacles, and the burden to justify security was not discharged.
7 Feb 2018

DRACCO NETHERLANDS B.V. v. SIMBA TOYS GMBH & CO. KG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 75
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV175/2017

The judge below erred by conflating a bona fide claim with a high prospect of success, by overstating the overlap between claim and counterclaim, and by prematurely relying on FJREO without allowing evidence on Dutch enforcement; on rehearing the Court exercised the discretion afresh, held the starting point is to order security against a non-resident plaintiff, reduced the master's HK$500,000 order by one-fifth to reflect limited overlap and ordered the plaintiff to pay HK$400,000 into court as security for costs with stay and dismissal provisions.
5 Oct 2016

DRACCO NETHERLANDS B.V v. SIMBA TOYS GMBH & CO. KG

Citation

DRACCO NETHERLANDS B.V v. SIMBA TOYS GMBH & CO. KG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA304/2014

The appeal was allowed and the Master's order for security set aside because on a broad‑brush rehearing the plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide claim with arguable prospects of success and there was substantial overlap between the claim and defendant's counterclaim such that ordering security would be unjust; the defendant failed to discharge its burden of showing it would be difficult or unjust to enforce a costs judgment in the Netherlands under the reciprocal enforcement regime and there was no evidence of deliberate misstatement of address by the plaintiff.
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.
28 Oct 2013

ALVIERO MARTINI S.P.A. v. BUBBLE RETAIL MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ALVIERO MARTINI S.P.A. v. BUBBLE RETAIL MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1937/2008

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving substantial realisable assets in Hong Kong sufficient to satisfy defendants' costs; orthodox security (deposit or HK bank guarantee) must be ordered and the requested amounts are appropriate: top-up HK$2,000,000 for 1st/2nd and HK$800,000 for 3rd/4th; costs of the application assessed and payable by plaintiff; failure to provide security within 28 days will result in dismissal/strike out of the action.
18 Jun 2013

LIN MAN YUAN v. KIN MING HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

LIN MAN YUAN v. KIN MING HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA216/2008

Although the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, the defendants failed to show she would be unable to pay the defendants' costs because she has HK$3,000,000 available and the court's broad‑brush assessment of appropriate security equated to HK$3,000,000; accordingly it was not just to order further security and the defendants' application was dismissed; costs of the application were awarded to the plaintiff in the assessed sum of HK$140,000 to be paid by the defendants within 14 days.