Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantum of security

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

AHS DEVICE HONGKONG LTD v. VT ZERO LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 642
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA197/2022

Defendant is a real attacker launching an independent counterclaim; credible unrefuted evidence indicates a real risk the defendant cannot satisfy an adverse costs order; no oppressive conduct or unexplained delay sufficient to defeat the application; exercise of discretion favours ordering security up to a proportionate sum of HK$1,000,000 to be paid into court pending trial.
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.
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.
18 Dec 2023

CHASE ON PLASTIC HOUSEWARE LTD v. CHASE ON DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3200
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1325/2021

The Recorder dismissed the appeal, holding there was credible evidence to infer the plaintiff would be unable to pay the 2nd defendant’s costs (given its incorporation purpose, failure to produce audited accounts or bank statements, inconsistent documents and lack of independent evidence of alleged capital injection); the 2nd defendant was not an "attacker" in substance because significant parts of its counterclaim were defensive and other parts raised distinct issues; it was just and fair to order security for costs of HK$1,200,000 up to exchange of witness statements.
15 Sept 2023

REAL ESTATE AND FINANCE FUND (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. SUN CHEUK PAK ALAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA938/2022

Security for costs was ordered under Order 23 rule 1; the plaintiffs' proposed security by way of a charge over Listco shares was insufficient and not 'copper-bottomed', therefore security had to be provided by payment into court or by a bank guarantee acceptable to the Registrar; specific sums and deadlines were fixed as sufficient security rather than complete security.
29 Jan 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. HWH HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2943/2015

Security for costs was ordered because Delco is an out-of-jurisdiction plaintiff and the Court of Appeal decision established that the defendants' counterclaims operate as a defence (equitable set-off/estoppel by convention), so the defendants are primarily defending rather than being co-attackers; having exercised a broad-brush assessment and discounted claimed costs the court fixed proportionate sums for each action and required payment within 28 days.
29 Jan 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

Because Delco is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal decision established that the defendants' counterclaims operate as a defence (equitable set-off/estoppel) rather than independent claims, the defendants are primarily defending; the balance of justice requires security for costs. The court exercised its discretion to order security but discounted the sums claimed and fixed security at HK$9,000,000 for A2943, HK$9,000,000 for A3040 and HK$3,600,000 for A2939 (from after PTR to trial), on usual terms, payable within 28 days; costs of the summonses to follow the…
29 Jan 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

The court held that security for costs should be ordered because Delco is an overseas plaintiff and it was just to do so; the Court of Appeal decision establishes that the defendants' counterclaims operate as a defence (equitable set-off/estoppel by convention) so defendants are primarily defending themselves and not 'real attackers', but that does not preclude ordering security. Applying a broad brush assessment and discounts for duplication and stage, the court fixed security at HK$9,000,000 for A2943, HK$9,000,000 for A3040 and HK$3,600,000 for A2939 (post-PTR) with payment within 28 days.
5 Jul 2019

ALLIED EVER HOLDINGS LTD v. LI SHU CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 752
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2018

The court will fix security for costs by a pragmatic broad‑brush estimate rather than detailed taxation, require realistic cost estimates from legal representatives, and will reduce the claimed quantum to reflect genuine duplication of work between related appeals so that a party cannot recover the full estimated costs of the same work twice.
26 Jan 2016

KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA475/2012

The Master’s exercise of discretion was correct: D2 failed to establish impecuniosity by full and frank disclosure and did not demonstrate a sufficiently probable likelihood of success to displace the usual order against a foreign plaintiff; the paid sum of $210,000 and the circumstances did not warrant interference with the quantum ordered.