Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction/residence

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2024

CORNELIS PIETER ALEXANDER VAN DE RIET v. KD CONCEPT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1256
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5717/2021

Applying a broad‑brush exercise the court found it just to order security given the plaintiff's foreign residence, absence of Hong Kong assets and difficulty of enforcing a Hong Kong costs order in Thailand, rejected that defendants had unreasonably delayed or that the counterclaim alone barred security, apportioned risk between parties and ordered the plaintiff to pay HK$540,000 into court within 60 days and made an order nisi for costs to be summarily assessed.
18 Jan 2008

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)

Citation

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP664/2007

The defendant's application for security for costs is dismissed because the pleaded claim and the defendant's counterclaim are exact mirror images raising the same issues; in those circumstances the court applied the reasoning in BJ Crabtree and exercised its discretion not to order security despite concerns about the plaintiff's prospects and conduct.
6 Dec 2007

DEX ASIA LTD v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DEX ASIA LTD v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2007

The Court dismissed the bank\'s appeal and upheld the judge\'s exercise of discretion refusing security for costs because the plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of probability of success and circumstances (notice and meetings to change signatory) gave the bank reasonable grounds to be put on inquiry, obliging it to make enquiries before executing the transfer; the bank could not show a high probability of success and the Liggett principle did not decisively protect it.
20 Nov 2007

HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GION LIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GION LIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA657/2007

Plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong and the assets he claims in Hong Kong (savings account, life policy, companies with nominee shareholdings, and encumbered land held by a company) are not fixed and permanent assets readily available for meaningful execution; the Plaintiff’s pleaded facts and admissions undermined any strong case of gross negligence by the bank; accordingly it was fair and equitable to order security for costs, adjusted to HK$400,000 with 21 days to pay, and a costs order nisi granted to the 2nd Defendant.
19 Jul 2007

MARTIN JACQUES AND ANOTHER v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

MARTIN JACQUES AND ANOTHER v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1162/2002

Security for costs ordered in sum of HK$250,000 because plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, a valid legal aid certificate covers much of the defendants' likely costs on liability (leaving primarily costs before grant of legal aid and quantum for 2nd plaintiff uncovered), the application was not sufficiently late to bar relief, and the reduced amount is proportionate and will not stifle the claim.
15 Mar 2007

RE SHUM FONG CHUNG

Citation

RE SHUM FONG CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5782/2006

Because the statutory demand and petition were validly served, documentary evidence established the debtor's liability under the guarantee and the debtor failed to rebut or attend, the court was satisfied the petitioner proved entitlement to a bankruptcy order and therefore made the order against the debtor.
4 Mar 2006

WONG KAM SAN AND OTHERS v. ZHAO KAI INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG KAM SAN AND OTHERS v. ZHAO KAI INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1653/2004

The defendants discharged the burden of proving that the 1st plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong and the plaintiffs produced no affidavit to contradict this. The court found the plaintiffs' claimed assets were unreliable or encumbered (self valuation of properties and uncertain value of the mine). Balancing the factors and the existence of the properties as partial security for an undertaking, the court exercised its discretion under Order 23 rule 1 to order security for costs in the sum of HK$1.2 million to be deposited within 14 days, failing which the action as against the 1…
1 Mar 2005

P T GRAHA MULTIMULIA CEMERLANG v. SILVER TECH ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

P T GRAHA MULTIMULIA CEMERLANG v. SILVER TECH ENTERPRISE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW883/2004

Because the petitioner was an overseas entity with no assets in Hong Kong and it had not clearly demonstrated the very high probability of success required to render an order unjust, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs and fixed the sum at HK$200,000, with specified consequences for non-payment.
24 Jan 2003

ALI A.H. SALEH v. FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ALI A.H. SALEH v. FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6260/2002

Because the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction and has failed to demonstrate a high probability of success — his title to sue under the policies is tenuous for lack of pleaded or evidenced assignment or insurable interest — it was just to exercise the discretion under Order 23 Rule 1 and order security for costs in each action.