Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Residence of company

  • 4 Sept 2025

    GOLDEN HOUSE VENTURES LTD v. KWEK LENG SENG

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4681
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1991/2023

    The judge found on the evidence that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong (incorporated in BVI, lacking Hong Kong business registration, business connections to Landing in South Korea and documents denominated in KRW) but declined to order security for costs because, in all the circumstances, it would be unjust: the defendant's counterclaim arises from the same matters and will be litigated anyway, both parties are effectively attackers and the counterclaim is not greater than the claim, so ordering security would be unfair.

  • 21 Jul 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

    Applicants failed to discharge the burden under Order 23: on the evidence the factors for residence were equally balanced so plaintiffs could not be shown to be ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong; plaintiffs were legally beneficially interested and not mere nominal plaintiffs; there was insufficient evidence to conclude they will be unable to pay defendants' costs; and the contested declarations raised real disputed facts (forgery, misrepresentation) making strike out plainly inappropriate, therefore applications for security, stay and striking out must be dismissed and costs ordered to pl…

  • 25 Feb 2009

    AHN SANG GYUN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

    Citation
    AHN SANG GYUN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCIA4/2008

    The court refused to remit the Case Stated for amendment because the proposed additional questions improperly sought to re‑argue factual issues and selectively rely on evidence rather than raise pure questions of law within the limited categories permitted on a case stated; the Board's existing questions were adequate to address the core legal issues, and reasonable factual findings supported by evidence cannot be re-opened by amendment under s69(4).