Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Security for appeal

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 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 1180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL13/2011

The court granted a conditional stay only on the basis that a specified part of the funds remain in court to secure the Defendants in the event the appeal succeeds; a portion of the amount paid into court was ordered released to the Plaintiff within 14 days and the balance was ordered to remain in court until determination of the appeal, with costs in the cause (certificate for two counsel).
27 Aug 2024

EASY FORTUNE PROPERTY LTD v. YUNG CHUN HIM

Citation

[2024] HKCA 817
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/2024

Leave to appeal under s22(1) was refused because the defendant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and did not advance any 'or otherwise' justification; consequently the application for an interim stay also failed. The CA's interlocutory refusal to stay execution does not engage s22(1).
12 Jan 2023

EARTH GROUP LTD v. GLOBALMAX GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 64
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP380/2022

The Court of Appeal granted the defendants leave to appeal on the grounds that they had shown a reasonable prospect of success that the judge erred in imposing the Condition based on his assessment of the strength of the defences; it refused leave only on grounds relating to the irregularity of service or the judge's finding of evasion of service; and ordered the costs of the leave application to be in the cause of the appeal.
13 Sept 2017

吳潭堯對陳沛賢

Citation

吳潭堯對陳沛賢
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV234/2016

The Court refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any issue of great and general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484 and the matters appealed were case‑specific determinations about security for costs governed by established authority (Chung Kau), so there was no proper basis to refer the matter to the Court of Final Appeal.
13 Mar 2015

RYDER INDUSTRIES LTD (FORMERLY SAITEK LTD) v. TIMELY ELECTRONICS CO LTD

Citation

RYDER INDUSTRIES LTD (FORMERLY SAITEK LTD) v. TIMELY ELECTRONICS CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV165/2013

The Court granted Timely and Chan leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the 'as of right' limb because their unquantified counterclaim did not, in this case, prevent the claim from falling within s22(1)(a); it refused leave under the 'public importance' limb because issues raised were not of general public importance or were case-specific. The Court held that sanctioned offers made below do not automatically govern costs of appeals under the current wording of Order 22, but must be taken into account for costs below; accordingly it varied the costs order below to award party-and-par…
13 Mar 2015

RYDER INDUSTRIES LTD (FORMERLY SAITEK LTD) v. CHAN SHUI WOO

Citation

RYDER INDUSTRIES LTD (FORMERLY SAITEK LTD) v. CHAN SHUI WOO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV164/2013

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is granted on the 'as of right' limb because Saitek’s claims against Timely and Chan are quantified and the unquantified counterclaim does not operate to exclude the as-of-right jurisdiction; leave under the public importance limb is refused because the contested legal issues are either not novel in Hong Kong or are fact‑specific. Order 22 sanctions operate primarily to affect costs of proceedings below; sanctioned offers made below do not automatically entitle a party to indemnity costs of the appeal, but the sanctioned offers must be taken into a…
24 Jul 2014

南洋商業銀行有限公司及另一人對黃永光及另一人

Citation

南洋商業銀行有限公司及另一人對黃永光及另一人
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2013

Application for leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to demonstrate questions of legal public importance or very exceptional circumstances under s22; the requirement to pay security did not on the facts establish deprivation of appeal rights engaging the Basic Law; the trial judge's reference to Mainland decisions was correctly treated as admissible evidence of Mainland law and was not a misapplication of principle.
27 Feb 2012

DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD v. WHOLE WIN MANAGEMENT FUND LTD

Citation

DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD v. WHOLE WIN MANAGEMENT FUND LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV251/2010

The Court held that the defendant could appeal as of right under s.22(1)(a) against the order requiring payment of a liquidated sum but because the defendant also sought to challenge the setting aside of the Judge's direction (which would raise unliquidated counterclaim damages) it was appropriate to grant leave under s.22(1)(b) for that part so the Court of Final Appeal can determine both issues together; security of HKD 400,000 was ordered under s.25(2)(a) and costs of the leave application were to be costs in the appeal.
15 Sept 2011

CHUNG YUEN YEE v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHUNG YUEN YEE v. SAM WOO BORE PILE FOUNDATION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/2010

The Court exercised its discretion to require the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants to increase the amount paid into Court to $2,600,000 within 7 days and ordered that the money paid in shall remain in Court until determination of the defendants' application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, thereby securing the plaintiff's interests pending the leave determination.
27 Apr 2011

THE YIEN YIEH COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. HUNG OI WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

THE YIEN YIEH COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. HUNG OI WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV260/2009

Leave to appeal was granted but made conditional on payment of $150,000 into court within two months to protect the successful bank from irrecoverable costs; the application for a stay of execution was refused because the appeal raised only one arguable legal issue, lacked a strong likelihood of success given the judge's findings on undue influence, and the Nancy Kissel precedent was distinguishable as the alleged defects in cross-examination were not of the same cumulative and prejudicial order.