← Back to all casesEN
CACV69/2025
LAU CHUNG v HUI KENG YEE & CORNWALL AGENCY COMPANY LIMITED
Case Details
Case ReferenceCACV69/2025
CourtCourt of Appeal of the High Court 高等法院(上訴法庭)
Date Published2026-03-20
LanguageEnglish
NCN[2026] HKCA 482
Claimant / ApplicantLAU CHUNG
Defendant / RespondentHUI KENG YEE
JudgesHon Au JA, Hon Chow JA
Defendant CounselMr Joseph Ng
Defendant SolicitorsIu, Lai & Li
Judgment Summary
Facts
- •Plaintiff appealed CFI judgment refusing to restore his claim and allowing 1st Defendant's counterclaim for life interest in Property.
- •1st Defendant applied for security for costs of HK$693,200.
- •Plaintiff resides mainly in Huizhou, Mainland, with no residential address in Hong Kong.
- •Plaintiff claims Property equity as security, but it is subject to 1st Defendant's life interest.
- •Plaintiff acted in person; 1st Defendant represented by counsel and solicitors.
- •Court determined application on paper without oral hearing.
Issues
- •Whether Plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong.
- •Whether there would be difficulty or delay in enforcing a costs order against the Plaintiff.
- •Whether the Plaintiff's Hong Kong assets are sufficient for enforcement.
- •Whether the appeal has sufficient merits to militate against security.
- •What is the appropriate quantum of security for costs.
Outcome
- •Plaintiff to pay HK$500,000 into court within 28 days as security for costs.
- •Appeal proceedings stayed until payment and notice given.
- •Appeal dismissed automatically upon default of payment.
- •Plaintiff to pay 1st Defendant's costs of the appeal if dismissed.
- •1st Defendant awarded costs of the security application.
Implication
- •Residence outside Hong Kong creates prima facie difficulty in costs enforcement.
- •Encumbered assets may not count as sufficient security for costs.
- •Weak appeal merits support rather than oppose security orders.
- •Appellants must provide evidence of habitual residence and asset liquidity.
- •Court adopts broad brush approach to quantum assessment.
Laws & Authorities Cited
- §Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), O.59, r.14A(1)
- §Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), O.25, r.1C
- §Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), O.25, r.1B(3)
- §Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), O.25, r.1C(6)
- §Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), O.59, r.10(5)
- §Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), O.1A, r.1
- §Quest Investments Ltd v Lee Wai Tung [2021] HKCA 926
- §Chung Kau v Hong Kong Housing Authority & Ors [2004] 2 HKLRD 650
- §Thapa Hari Bahadur v Paramount Engineering & Manpower Services Ltd [2022] HKCA 1516
- §Great Bill Ltd v JFK Holding Company Ltd (unreported, CACV 53/2012)
- §Rich Fine (HK) Investment Ltd and Another v Leung Yiu Chuen [2018] HKCA 965
- §Re Days International Ltd (unreported, HCCW 299/2011)