RONFIT INVESTMENTS LTD v. SMARKING INTERNATIONAL LTD

RONFIT INVESTMENTS LTD v. SMARKING INTERNATIONAL LTD

The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs because the counterclaim is not so inextricably bound to the original tenancy claim as to preclude security, the defendant company (Smarking) demonstrated probable inability to pay the defendants' costs based on its accounts, and no sufficient evidence showed that impecuniosity was caused by the defendants; accordingly security of HKD 180,000 was appropriate and payable into court within 21 days or the counterclaim will be stayed.

Citation
RONFIT INVESTMENTS LTD v. SMARKING INTERNATIONAL LTD
Parties
Original Plaintiff; 3rd Defendant by Counterclaim: Ronfit Investments Limited; Original Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Smarking International Limited; 1st Defendant by Counterclaim: Lau Chi Keung George; 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim: Sky Sound Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 September 1999
Case Number
HCA17616/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Action — Landlord and Tenant, Possession, Contractual Counterclaim and Security for Costs / Appeal From Master Ho's 9 July 1999 Decision Refusing Security for Costs; Judgment on Appeal (20 September 1999)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Ordered Smarking to provide security for costs in the sum of HKD 180,000 to be paid into court within 21 days, failing which the counterclaim will be stayed; costs to the Defendants by Counterclaim in any event with certificate for counsel; costs of the hearing before Master Ho and of the appeal to...
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Counterclaim, Rescission, Possession, Damages
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Contract Misrepresentation Security for Costs Counterclaim Rescission Possession +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronfit Investments Limited

Original Plaintiff; 3rd Defendant by Counterclaim

Smarking International Limited

Original Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Lau Chi Keung George

1st Defendant by Counterclaim

Sky Sound Limited

2nd Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Action — Landlord and Tenant, Possession, Contractual Counterclaim and Security for Costs / Appeal From Master Ho's 9 July 1999 Decision Refusing Security for Costs; Judgment on Appeal (20 September 1999)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim arises out of the same matter or transaction as the original claim
  2. 2 Whether Smarking should be ordered to provide security for the costs of the Defendants by Counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether Smarking is impecunious and whether that impecuniosity was caused by the defendants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs because the counterclaim is not so inextricably bound to the original tenancy claim as to preclude security, the defendant company (Smarking) demonstrated probable inability to pay the defendants' costs based on its accounts, and no sufficient evidence showed that impecuniosity was caused by the defendants; accordingly security of HKD 180,000 was appropriate and payable into court within 21 days or the counterclaim will be stayed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Ordered Smarking to provide security for costs in the sum of HKD 180,000 to be paid into court within 21 days, failing which the counterclaim will be stayed; costs to the Defendants by Counterclaim in any event with certificate for counsel; costs of the hearing before Master Ho and of the appeal to...

Orders

  • Smarking to provide security for the costs of the Defendants by Counterclaim in the sum of HKD 180,000
  • The sum of HKD 180,000 to be paid into court by Smarking within 21 days from judgment