Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party funding

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2023

MK v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 22
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV179/2023

Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the standard security for costs would probably stifle the appeal because her evidence about third‑party funding (notably the finances of her life partner) was inadequate and she did not demonstrate that reasonable inquiries had been made; therefore the conditional order requiring security remains and the summons for waiver is dismissed.
2 Sept 2021

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. NG CHIU KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2835/2018

On the evidence the plaintiff remained delinquent in paying accrued assessed costs, had minimal paid-up capital and failed to produce convincing evidence of present or prospective ability to satisfy adverse costs; third party funders' willingness to fund further was not demonstrated and unwillingness is not an adequate answer to a security application; balancing the risk of stifling against injustice to defendants, the court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in specified sums and stayed proceedings pending payment.
21 Sept 2015

DX v. LN

Citation

DX v. LN
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7870/2014

Applying MPPO and authorities, the court found the Wife had exhausted available cash and that third‑party family support to the Husband was likely to continue; the Wife was entitled to maintenance pending suit and a costs provision. The court applied a broad‑brush assessment of needs and means, discounted some of Wife's claimed extravagances but accepted her urgent need and the unfairness of unequal legal representation; the appropriate interim award was fixed as a combined monthly payment (maintenance plus staged costs provision) of HK$233,333 dated from 1 May 2015 until further order, with…
28 Feb 2013

RE GILL AJMER SINGH

Citation

RE GILL AJMER SINGH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP194/2013

Extension of time was refused because the intended appeal had no prospect of success: the Court of Final Appeal had already determined that the law of maintenance and champerty applies in Hong Kong and is constitutional, including consideration of Article 35 and access‑to‑justice exceptions; minimal delay did not outweigh the absence of arguable grounds.
17 Jul 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. ERNST & YOUNG (a Hong Kong firm)

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. ERNST & YOUNG (a Hong Kong firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL29/2004

At this late pre-trial stage the court refused extensive additional discovery that was irrelevant or oppressive and confined orders to documents reasonably germane to the limitation and pleaded issues up to the agreed critical date (19 November 2002). Specific targeted discovery was ordered (including CCB document list, archive listing and materials relating to the eight pleaded transactions), broad requests for time sheets, third-party funding communications and s.221 affidavits were refused on grounds of oppression or privilege, and disclosure of the US Settlement Agreement was ordered subj…
19 May 1999

CREDIT CONTROL CENTRE (HK) LTD v. FAME SURE LTD

Citation

CREDIT CONTROL CENTRE (HK) LTD v. FAME SURE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/1999

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant was impecunious, failed to demonstrate real and substantial grounds of appeal, failed to show its impecuniosity resulted from any wrongful act by the respondent, and failed to provide credible evidence that a third party could provide security; the claimed amount was reduced from $346,300 to $250,000.

Hong Kong Case Law

MK v. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AID

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. NG CHIU KWAN AND OTHERS

DX v. LN

RE GILL AJMER SINGH

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. ERNST & YOUNG (a Hong Kong firm)

CREDIT CONTROL CENTRE (HK) LTD v. FAME SURE LTD