Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 905 companies ordinance

Legal area

Court

26 Jan 2026

ETERNAL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. LO KON KI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA600/2025

Plaintiff is prima facie ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction and, having regard to its status as a paper/shelf BVI company, the timing and nature of the Property acquisition and lack of evidence of other assets or means of payment, there is reason to believe Plaintiff may be unable to pay Defendant's costs; in all the circumstances it is just to order security for costs in the reduced sum of HK$900,000 and make a costs order nisi in respect of the summons.
27 Oct 2025

MIUMI INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY LTD v. CHAN KA CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1952/2021

Appeal dismissed because D6&D7 are at least equal attackers: they initiated statutory demands and a counterclaim based on the same invoices, such that the issues would be fully litigated regardless; ordering security would be unfair. Further, D6&D7's lengthy unexplained delay in applying for security caused real prejudice to the plaintiff. On these discretionary grounds under s.905 Companies Ordinance the court refused to order security and dismissed the appeal. Costs of the appeal assessed at HK$300,000 against D6&D7.
24 Jul 2025

BORROWER v. LENDER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT146/2024

The Court held it has jurisdiction under Order 23 RHC to order security in arbitration-related proceedings under the Arbitration Ordinance; applying the statutory discretionary factors the Court found the Applicant was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, produced no credible evidence of assets or means in Hong Kong, had obstructive conduct in the arbitration creating real risk of non-enforcement, and the setting aside challenge was not manifestly strong; accordingly security of HK$1.5 million was ordered and related procedural and costs directions made.
1 Apr 2025

Y AND ANOTHER v. GI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT117/2024

Security for costs of HK$2,000,000 was ordered because the plaintiffs are ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong with no readily available assets in Hong Kong; the Award itself and its declaration of the contractual set-off demonstrate that the plaintiffs will not receive the US$100m purchase price on transfer (it will be set off), enforcement against the Group is likely to be difficult given credible evidence of group financial distress and a Consolidation Notice, and the setting-aside challenge has low prospects such that the balance of justice favors ordering security.
17 Dec 2024

UNION OVERSEAS LTD v. IFC DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2101
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1316/2023

Credible objective evidence (nominal paid-up capital, absence of business presence or corroborating documents showing independent commercial activities, and lack of substantial assets) established a prima facie case under s905 Companies Ordinance that the plaintiff may be unable to pay the defendants' costs; security of $250,000 was appropriate and the Master's costs order was varied to reflect discount for improper material in the defendants' affidavit.
1 Nov 2024

P1 AND ANOTHER v. D

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT59/2023

The court held that in a court challenge to a Hong Kong-seated arbitral award the protections in section 56 AO applicable to arbitral tribunals do not automatically displace the court's discretion under RHC Order 23 r1(1)(a); having weighed all circumstances (P1 resident abroad, P2 negligible assets, difficulty of enforcement of costs against P1, absence of rebuttal evidence and delay), the court ordered security for future costs in the sum of HK$1,504,600 to be paid into court within 14 days and provided that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the Set Aside Application with indemn…
17 Sept 2019

HASSAN DJALIL ZADEH v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2675
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP76/2019

The court concluded that Zadeh, who invoked the court's jurisdiction, is in substance the plaintiff; an intended intervener providing adverse evidence does not become the plaintiff for purposes of security for costs; the analysis of plaintiff/defendant must be made by reference to the action as a whole; on the facts Jaldhi had sufficient assets/credit facilities and there was no credible testimony establishing inability to pay; even if statutory requirements could be made out the court would exercise its discretion to refuse security having regard to the circumstances (including reciprocal en…
8 Aug 2019

HIGH ROUTE LTD v. WONG CHUNG KAI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1914
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA320/2019

The statutory threshold under s905 was crossed because the plaintiff failed to provide credible evidence of assets or present ability to pay, but on the exercise of the court's discretion security was refused because the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim arise from the same facts so the Crabtree principle applies and defendant's defending costs are largely costs of prosecuting its counterclaim; therefore the application for security is dismissed.
28 Dec 2018

REDOAK CAPITAL LTD v. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1625/2017

The court refused the further evidence application because the proposed documents related to matters existing before the Master's hearing and the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall conditions and was inordinate and unexplainedly late; on rehearing the court held there was credible testimony from surrounding circumstances (small paid-up capital, no real business presence, sole director/shareholder, use of corporate vehicle) to infer the plaintiff would likely be unable to pay defendant's costs, so the Master's order for security for costs was correct and the appeal was dismissed.