Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third-party litigation funding

Legal area

Court

27 May 2020

RE PATRICK COWLEY AND LUI YEE MAN, JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF THE COMPANY

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 922
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP373/2020

A liquidator does not require the court's prior sanction to enter a funding agreement which either effects an assignment of a chose in action or funds litigation, because such actions fall within the statutory powers conferred by Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 25 (notably para 9) read with s251(1)(b) for voluntary liquidations and s199(3) for winding-ups by the court; court directions should be sought only to resolve discrete legal questions or genuine legal uncertainty, not to approve ordinary commercial judgments of the liquidator.
18 Jan 2019

RE QIN JUN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 80
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV109/2017

Because Madam Wang funded an entirely without‑merit application for leave to appeal and thereby made the application possible, the court exercised its discretion to award the creditor indemnity costs against her despite her asserted lack of interest or control; applying the standard of taxation for indemnity costs the court reduced the claimed amount and assessed costs at HK$115,320.
9 Aug 2018

RAAFAT IMAM v. LIFE (CHINA) CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1508/2017

The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration and to approve the Funding Agreement because the plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances warranting a declaration of non-criminality and failed to join a proper contradictor (DPP or Secretary for Justice); accordingly the summons for declaration and approval was dismissed.
25 Jan 2017

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

The court ordered the solicitors on record (RSRB) to disclose the identity of the funder of the 5th defendant's costs because (1) the information is critical to the plaintiff's reasonably arguable intended application for a non‑party costs order under s52A(2), (2) the identity is not privileged, and (3) disclosure of identity alone is proportionate; further disclosure was refused at this stage and the separate summons for broader funding documents was dismissed.
11 Nov 2015

MARSHEL EXPORTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA

Citation

MARSHEL EXPORTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW274/2012

Joinder of GT and JSL for costs purposes granted; costs order made against GT alone because it was a self-interested funder with contractual indemnities and no credible evidence of inability to pay; no personal costs order against the liquidators because the Bank failed to establish impropriety or that it was just to make them personally liable, and because availability of security for costs and public interest in enabling liquidators to perform duties weighed against such an order. Ordered nisi that Bank's costs against GT be paid by GT and that JSL's costs be paid by the Bank; costs to be t…
8 Oct 2015

RE COMPANY F

Citation

RE COMPANY F
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP120/2008

Leave granted: the proposed commercial funding agreement did not infringe the rules against maintenance and champerty because it was in the interests of creditors, the liquidators retained control of the litigation, adequate safeguards limited the risk of improper influence, and practical considerations (impracticality of funding by bondholders) justified the arrangement.
8 Oct 2015

RE COMPANY D

Citation

RE COMPANY D
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW638/2006

Leave was granted because the court was satisfied the funding arrangement was in the interests of creditors, on satisfactory terms, preserved the liquidators' control over conduct of litigation, and presented limited risk that the commercial funder could improperly influence proceedings; the commercial character of the funder was not dispositive in the circumstances.
8 Oct 2015

RE COMPANY G

Citation

RE COMPANY G
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2019/2015

Leave to enter the proposed funding agreement was granted because the arrangement is in the interests of creditors, the Liquidators retain control of the litigation, the risk of the funder improperly influencing conduct is limited by the agreement, and the funding is practically necessary given the bondholder constituency; these factors outweigh the public policy concerns about commercial third-party funding in the specific insolvency context.
8 Oct 2015

RE COMPANY E

Citation

RE COMPANY E
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2421/2007

The court granted leave for the liquidators to enter the proposed funding agreement because the arrangement was in the creditors' interests, was on satisfactory terms, ensured the liquidators retained control of the litigation, and the risks of maintenance and champerty from a commercial funder were acceptably mitigated in the circumstances; the commercial character of the funder did not, on these facts, render the agreement impermissible.
19 Jan 2015

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. SHEARMAN & STERLING (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA806/2006

Extension of time was granted but limited to 13 February 2015 (date fixed for hearing of leave to appeal) because the latest letter from True Treasure provided a sufficient prospect that the ordered security would be paid but the evidence did not justify a longer extension; other proposed funding sources and ATE evidence were speculative and insufficient; defendants entitled to costs of the application on party-and-party basis.