Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Impecuniosity

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

SINO RESOURCES (HONG KONG) LTD v. KAN KWOK YU

Citation

[2026] HKCA 884
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV256/2024

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant had been adjudged bankrupt (indicating impecuniosity), had declared residence in the United Kingdom making enforcement difficult and potentially expensive, and the appeal was not sufficiently strong to outweigh the need for security; the court fixed security at HK$500,000 as reasonable after reducing the claimant's estimate.
10 Feb 2026

ZHAN XIANMING v. GRACEWOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 87
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV473/2024

Security for costs ordered (HK$750,000) because material before the Court established Zhan's impecuniosity, residence outside the jurisdiction, and history of non‑payment of costs making enforcement likely difficult and expensive; the asserted merits of the appeals do not constitute sufficient countervailing factors to outweigh the special circumstances justifying security; quantum reduced from draft estimate to exclude potential VCF application costs.
17 Dec 2025

CHEUNG SAU YIN v. LAI TAK CHUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1132
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV321/2024

Because the debtor was bankrupt and failed to demonstrate countervailing factors or ability to satisfy costs, and the appeal did not identify specific errors by the Judge, the Court exercised its discretion under Order 59 r 10(5) to order security for costs despite the appellant's bankruptcy; refusal to admit the new evidence was justified and security was ordered with consequential procedural sanctions.
12 Dec 2025

CHOW FRANK, formerly known as ZHOU XINGFANG v. YUEN HOI PO

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1069
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV261/2025

The Debtor demonstrated credible and sufficient evidence of the Petitioner’s impecuniosity and the Shares are not sufficient security because they are returnable on request, volatile, thinly traded and would require court-ordered sale to enforce costs; the merits of the appeal are only arguable and do not outweigh the need for security; accordingly security for costs is ordered in the sum of HK$500,000 to be paid into court within 35 days, with the appeal stayed until payment and dismissal in default, and costs of the application awarded to the Debtor.
10 Dec 2025

WANG BOHENG v. 于卡弗

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6212
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA193/2025

The Court dismissed the Defendant's stay application because the Defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal; consequently there was no good reason to grant a stay or to require security for costs. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to provide his address within 14 days to comply with Order 6 rule 5(a) RHC. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on a nisi basis (Defendant to bear 90% of costs summarily assessed at HKD 63,000).
8 Dec 2025

成都圆中侨信商贸有限公司 v. LEUNG KA CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1052
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV467/2024

The court concluded the Debtor is impecunious and there is a real risk of difficulty enforcing costs; the Debtor produced no evidence of means and the skeleton bill sufficiently set out incurred and estimated costs; countervailing factors (merits only arguable, delay not fatal, no evidence of purpose to stifle appeal) were insufficient to refuse security; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs on a party‑and‑party assessment and fixed security at HK$385,000 with stay and dismissal consequences for non‑payment, and awarded the Petitioner costs of the applica…
24 Oct 2025

GURDAS SABHAGCHAND CHOITHRAMANI v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 921
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV86/2021

The plaintiff lacked standing because the causes of action accrued before his bankruptcies and vested in the Official Receiver as trustee in bankruptcy with no assignment or consent to the plaintiff; accordingly the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and, given the plaintiff's impecuniosity and abuse of process, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of HK$420,000, stay the appeal pending payment, and provide for dismissal on default and summary assessment of the defendant's costs of the application.
31 Jul 2025

LIU ZUO BIN v. LIU YING TING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA37/2024

Security for costs was ordered because P is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, P failed to demonstrate a very high probability of success on the pleaded case, P did not identify substantial fixed assets within Hong Kong or certain readily enforceable assets in Mainland China, and P failed to adduce credible evidence that an order would stifle the claim; exercising broad‑brush discretion the court ordered security of HK$550,000 and stayed proceedings pending payment and allowed costs to defendants of HK$320,000 on a nisi basis.
27 May 2025

UNIQUE REALTY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG REAL ESTATE AGENCIES GENERAL ASSOCIATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 473
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV74/2024

Defendants established credible evidence from which a reasonable inference of the plaintiffs' impecuniosity could be drawn and plaintiffs failed to rebut with meaningful financial evidence; the appeal's merits were not decisive to displace the order for security; accordingly security for costs was ordered and the appeal stayed until payment.
25 Feb 2025

HWH HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. STEPHENSON HARWOOD (A FIRM)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 193
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV18/2024

The application for security was dismissed because the appellants possess substantial assets in Hong Kong (notably the Escrow Fund of c. HK$64m) which, notwithstanding Mareva injunctions or competing claims, remain their property and are in principle available to satisfy a costs order; SH did not demonstrate that enforcement would involve undue delay or expense amounting to special circumstances to justify security.