Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-resident plaintiff

Legal area

Court

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

HCMP629/2007

The application for security for costs was dismissed because, although the plaintiff did not demonstrate a high degree of probability of success on the merits, the claim and the defendant's counterclaim are exact mirror images; ordering security would confer a tactical advantage by effectively treating the plaintiff as a defendant to the counterclaim while depriving the plaintiff of its procedural position, and therefore on the court's discretion it was just to refuse security.
23 Jan 2001

Mount Top Management Ltd. v. Charter General Holdings Ltd.

Citation

Mount Top Management Ltd. v. Charter General Holdings Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16001/2000

The judge held that on the evidence the plaintiffs had furnished valuable consideration within s.27(1)(a) because consideration moved from the plaintiffs to Changchun Charter (including the plaintiffs agreeing to perform and Mr Lai travelling to demonstrate), following the approach in Diamond v Graham and Kao Lee & Yip; consequently the plaintiffs demonstrated a high probability of success and the refusal to order security for costs was correct, so the appeal was dismissed.
10 Sept 1997

CHARTER VIEW HOLDINGS (B.V.I.) LTD. v. TUNGTEX (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD. and Others

Citation

CHARTER VIEW HOLDINGS (B.V.I.) LTD. v. TUNGTEX (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7611/1996

On the facts before the Court the company was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong; consequently the Court had power to order security under Ord.23 r.1(1)(a); section 357 did not apply to the overseas company incorporated in the BVI; the Court ordered further security of HKD 1,100,000 in the first action (to be paid within 28 days and staying the action until paid) and treated the HKD 250,000 already paid into court as security in the second action; the company's appeal against Master Chu's order was dismissed.
16 May 1990

THE LESLIE FAY CO, INCORPORATION t/a BRECKENRIDGE SPORTSWEAR DIVISION v. CHEERIO LTD

Citation

THE LESLIE FAY CO, INCORPORATION t/a BRECKENRIDGE SPORTSWEAR DIVISION v. CHEERIO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4505/1989

The appeal is allowed and the plaintiff, being non-resident, is ordered to give security for costs because the subsidiary's assets are legally those of the subsidiary not the plaintiff; absent exceptional circumstances or a very high probability on the merits, the normal rule requiring security for non-resident plaintiffs applies.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

Mount Top Management Ltd. v. Charter General Holdings Ltd.

CHARTER VIEW HOLDINGS (B.V.I.) LTD. v. TUNGTEX (HOLDINGS) CO. LTD. and Others

THE LESLIE FAY CO, INCORPORATION t/a BRECKENRIDGE SPORTSWEAR DIVISION v. CHEERIO LTD