Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction and residence

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2023

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD (suing on behalf of itself and also in its capacity as the sole shareholder of LONGFORD INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY CO LTD) v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1028
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV341/2022

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the special circumstances required to order security for costs because the defendant produced evidence of substantial funds (about HK$8.6m) in a Hong Kong bank account sufficient to satisfy the security sought, there was no evidence of likely dissipation at the Mareva standard, and the appeal was not shown to be clearly hopeless; accordingly the application for security was dismissed and the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application assessed at HK$250,000 gross.
19 Jan 2017

SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN

Citation

SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3075/2015

Security for costs in the sum of $2,000,000.00 was ordered and the claim stayed until security is provided because the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong with no disclosed Hong Kong assets, enforcement of a costs order abroad would be difficult and costly, and the overlap between claim and counterclaim is limited such that ordering security would not be tantamount to providing security for the defendant's counterclaim; the amount ordered excluded costs attributable to counterclaim limbs and was set on a broad‑brush assessment of the defendant's likely costs.
3 Apr 1998

PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW20/1998

The court exercised its discretion to appoint a receiver ad litem to take over the conduct of the action from the Provisional Liquidators because the perceived conflict and threatened litigation against the firm of the Provisional Liquidators could affect creditors confidence and the effective conduct of litigation, and because appointment would likely minimise costs of a protracted dispute; it was unnecessary to resolve the conflict issue at this stage, and the appointment is subject to the court being satisfied as to the receiver's fitness and his consent.
26 Nov 1982

SHYAM NARAINDAS KIRPALANI ALIAS NK SHYAM v. DAYS IMTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

SHYAM NARAINDAS KIRPALANI ALIAS NK SHYAM v. DAYS IMTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/1982

Order 44A applies to persons about to leave the jurisdiction whether transient or resident; the plaintiff must show that leaving will likely obstruct or delay execution; a warrant must issue if the plaintiff's evidence satisfies that test; bail under r.3(2)-(3) requires surety/sureties bound to pay any sum adjudged, and if a deposit is offered under r.3(4) the judge must assess and accept a sum sufficient to answer the likely judgment with costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD (suing on behalf of itself and also in its capacity as the sole shareholder of LONGFORD INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY CO LTD) v. LEONG MA LI

SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN

PEREGRINE INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD.

SHYAM NARAINDAS KIRPALANI ALIAS NK SHYAM v. DAYS IMTERNATIONAL LTD