Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment into court as condition

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2026

RE TRITECH DISTRIBUTION LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW458/2025

Given the Company's failure to comply with Rule 32(1) and absence of satisfactory explanation for the delay, and having regard to longstanding practice and the need to protect the petition process and third parties, it was proper to impose a substantial payment condition as the price for leave to file evidence out of time; the Company's proposed grounds centering on jurisdictional clause did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success and would not have avoided the need for security at the time of the hearing.
10 Oct 2023

ENOTECA ITALIANA LTD v. IL BEL PAESE LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3293/2022

The Judge affirmed the Master's order: the plaintiff proved due service by registered post so the judgment was regularly obtained, but on the material before the court the defendant demonstrated a defence that could well be established such that the default judgment should be set aside; the condition that the defendant pay HK$264,453.20 into court was appropriate as a security measure; costs follow the event.
19 Jan 2018

CCM EARTH LTD AND OTHERS v. ALFA GCM LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 85
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1210/2016

The default judgment is set aside conditional on payment into court of HK$1,000,000 because the defendant has shown a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim on matters of oral credit, inducement and fraud which require trial, while the defendant's unexplained delay and participation in the Order 37 assessment justify imposing a payment-in condition.
16 Jun 2016

北京橙天嘉禾影視製作有限公司 v. 張承勷

Citation

北京橙天嘉禾影視製作有限公司 v. 張承勷
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2481/2013

The Final Judgment was irregular because the defendant was not physically in Hong Kong when served and lacked notice, and accordingly it should be set aside as of right under Order 13 r.9; however, having regard to the defendant's substantial delay, evasive conduct about his whereabouts, prejudice to the plaintiff and a real risk of empty judgment, the court imposed the condition that the defendant must pay RMB 4,165,676.66 (or HKD equivalent) into court within 28 days; leave to adduce the seven Hong Kong judgments to prove PRC law under s.59 was granted.
8 Dec 2015

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V.AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS

Citation

ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V.AND OTHERS v. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2010

The court held the Judgment was interlocutory and leave to appeal was required; granted First Media leave to appeal and granted stays of execution pending appeal to both First Media and AAL without imposing Astro's sought payment-into-court condition because compelling reasons for that condition were not established and imposing it risked stifling the appeals; varied costs orders so First Media pays 80% of Astro's costs and awarded specified certificates for counsel.
8 May 2014

KWOK KWONG PANG v. SHUM KIT MAN ALAN

Citation

KWOK KWONG PANG v. SHUM KIT MAN ALAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA675/2013

The court refused the defendant leave to adduce the 3rd affirmation because the Ladd v Marshall requirements were not met (defendant failed to show reasonable diligence, the new evidence would not probably have an important influence, and the evidence lacked sufficient credibility). The court upheld the Master's imposition of a condition (payment of US$81,000 into court) because the defendant's repeated failures to update Companies Registry addresses and the absence of reliable proof of Hong Kong assets created a real risk of an empty judgment and justified a security condition; the defendant…
22 May 2012

CHEUNG CHI PO v. KE JUN XIANG

Citation

CHEUNG CHI PO v. KE JUN XIANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV170/2011

The promissory note's express acknowledgment that HK$25,000,000 was received by the defendant meant he had no substantial defence to the debt claim; the Judge below erred in demanding the plaintiff produce further evidence of lending, but because the plaintiff's pleaded case differed from his affidavit the Court imposed a conditional setting aside requiring payment into court of HK$25,000,000 within 28 days.
5 Sept 2007

AIG CREDIT CARD CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. SHUEN MI HO

Citation

AIG CREDIT CARD CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. SHUEN MI HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA37/2007

The judge found no error of law in the Adjudicator's exercise of discretion: the Adjudicator reasonably concluded the defendant lacked a reasonably arguable defence and therefore lawfully imposed payment of the claimed sums into court as a condition to set aside the default judgments; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
21 Apr 2006

FU CHUEN KWAN v. KE JUNXIANG

Citation

FU CHUEN KWAN v. KE JUNXIANG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4769/2005

The Court held that the defendant's evidence was admissible as asserting conditional delivery under s.21(2)(b) and that, although the defence was shadowy and suspicious, it raised triable issues; accordingly leave to defend was granted but made conditional on payment into court of HK$200,000 within 28 days; the Master's order entering judgment was set aside but the Master's dismissal of the extension application and associated costs of the final hearing were not disturbed.
19 Jul 2001

SKK (H.K) CO. LTD. v. IP KIN KEUNG t/a ASIA CONTRACTING CO.

Citation

SKK (H.K) CO. LTD. v. IP KIN KEUNG t/a ASIA CONTRACTING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT22/2001

Defendant demonstrated real prospects of reducing the plaintiff's claim beyond the amount already paid, so the court set aside part of the default judgment and granted leave to defend the balance subject to a security condition; however the defendant had no real prospect of resisting the plaintiff's entitlement to the assessed 50% minimum, so judgment for HKD 746,325.43 was not set aside. The court ordered the defendant to pay HKD 800,000 into court within 21 days as condition of leave to defend the remainder, failing which the default judgment is restored.