Read the full judgment text of HCCT 146/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 July 2025 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Security for costs — Order 23 rule 1 RHC — Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) section 81 — Setting aside arbitral award — Company’s ordinary residence — Assets within jurisdiction — Merits of challenge — Conduct in arbitration — Draft unsigned affirmations inadmissible — Court’s discretion to order security affirmed. The Applicant, a Cayman Islands incorporated company, challenged a Hong Kong-seated arbitral award under section 81 of the Arbitration Ordinance. The Respondent applied for security for costs under Order 23 rule 1 and section 905 Companies Ordinance. The Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to order security in such proceedings, distinguishing between arbitral tribunal powers and the supervisory court’s powers. The Court held that the Applicant was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong and lacked credible evidence of financial means or assets in Hong Kong. The Applicant’s challenge to the Award was not manifestly invalid, but the Applicant’s failure to attend hearings and reliance on inadmissible draft affirmations undermined its position. Considering all circumstances including risks of non-enforcement, the Court ordered security of HK$1.5 million and provided that failure to furnish security would lead to dismissal of the setting aside application without further notice. Costs of the Security Summons were ordered against the Applicant, subject to assessment, with leave to object to costs within seven days.
Legal issues: Whether Order 23 RHC applies to arbitration-related proceedings · Exercise of discretion in ordering security for costs
Outcome: Order for security for costs granted against the Applicant; Originating Summons may be dismissed if security not provided; costs of the Security Summons to be paid by Applicant.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 8 cases