Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dismissal for non-payment

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2024

WANG HSUAN HAN v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 386
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1019/2022

The appeal is dismissed. Given the plaintiffs ordinary residence outside Hong Kong, absence of substantial assets in the jurisdiction, inability to demonstrate a high probability of success or inability to raise security, it was just to order security for costs. A broad-brush assessment fixed security at $300,000. Proceedings are to be stayed until payment and will be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to pay within the time allowed; costs follow the event and the plaintiff must pay the defendants assessed costs of the appeal and adjournment.
1 Aug 2023

HON KWAN 對 ZARA ASIA LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 928
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV455/2021

Permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any issue of great general or public importance or any other reason warranting referral to the CFA under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, and provided no legal basis to impugn the Court of Appeal's order; the application was therefore dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
15 Jul 2020

WU HAIJUN AND ANOTHER v. UNITED WEALTH GOLD & SILVER LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1550/2016

The application to extend time was largely refused because no evidence or adequate reasons were provided to justify an extension for security for costs; however, in view of the grave consequence of dismissal the court exercised discretion to grant a final short extension of five days while ordering plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the application summarily assessed at HK$20,000 to be paid within five days.
25 Jul 2017

YEUNG WAI FAN v. HONITON INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

YEUNG WAI FAN v. HONITON INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV6/2016

The court refused to grant an extension to pay security for costs and dismissed the summons because the appeal had stood dismissed on 23 September 2016 for failure to pay ordered security, the plaintiff produced no substantive grounds of appeal, displayed unexplained delay and a lack of candour about the availability of funds, and the court must uphold case‑management principles requiring expedition.
19 Sept 2016

RE LIU YI FANG

Citation

RE LIU YI FANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV106/2016

Because the bankrupt is impecunious, has substantial proved debts and minimal recoveries, and has failed to comply with prior income payment orders, the Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of HK$270,000, stayed the appeal pending payment, and ordered dismissal in default with costs to the Trustees.
7 Sept 2016

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1114/2006

The court granted an adjournment but only on protective terms because, while the plaintiff produced medical certificates indicating incapacity and the court placed weight on them, there were conflicting opinions and a real risk of prejudice to the defendant; accordingly the court ordered immediate payment of taxed costs and substantial security for costs as conditions of the adjournment, and provided that failure to pay would result in dismissal of the action.
22 Jul 2016

AKHTER RANA SHAHID v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Citation

AKHTER RANA SHAHID v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/2015

Security for costs was ordered because the plaintiff, an asylum seeker barred from work, presented credible evidence of destitution and inability to pay, failed to comply with a prior security order, offered no evidence to rebut impecuniosity, and his appeal lacked prospect of success on preliminary assessment; therefore HK$60,000 was a sufficient and just security, with a stay until payment and dismissal if not paid.
19 Jul 2013

WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER

Citation

WILLIAM THOMSON v. ROLAND JOHN JEANS AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3388/2005

Security for costs was ordered in the sum of HK$39,500 for each action based on the court's assessment of the parties' competing costs estimates, accepted items in the 2nd defendant's bill (except item 5), allowance for overlap and a margin for error; failure to pay within 14 days will result in dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.
15 Jul 2010

MENNO LEENDERT VOS v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MENNO LEENDERT VOS v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV281/2009

The plaintiff established a case for security; the court, estimating the appeal would last four days, ordered the 1st, 3rd and 6th defendants to pay $390,000 into court by 13 October 2010 as security for the appeal; pending payment the appeal was stayed and in default of payment the appeal would be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff; costs of the application were to be in the cause of the appeal.
28 Jul 2008

SZE KA SHUEN v. LEE MEI LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

SZE KA SHUEN v. LEE MEI LIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/2008

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant appeared impecunious and the respondents would have great difficulty in recovering costs; the appropriate quantum was fixed at HK$300,000 as sufficient to cover the respondents engaging suitable counsel, the applicants' request for over HK$1,100,000 was excessive, and the appeal was stayed until the security is lodged with dismissal consequences for default.