PRIMA LUCK INVESTMENTS LTD. v. WANG WEN HSI AND ANOTHER

PRIMA LUCK INVESTMENTS LTD. v. WANG WEN HSI AND ANOTHER

Security for costs under s.357 was warranted because the court must secure defendants\u2019 costs of being sued where there is concern the plaintiff company may be unable to pay; the evidence did not justify the full sum sought, and counterclaims do not negate the purpose of s.357. The appropriate security was set at HK$400,000 and proceedings were stayed until that security was lodged.

Citation
PRIMA LUCK INVESTMENTS LTD. v. WANG WEN HSI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Prima Luck Investments Limited; 1st Defendant/appellant: Wang Wen Hsi; 2nd Defendant/appellant: Ong Siu Ting
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 1999
Case Number
HCA13812/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (security for Costs Application) / Appeal From Master\u2019s Refusal; Interlocutory Judgment on Security for Costs
Outcome
Order for security for costs in the sum of HK$400,000; proceedings stayed until security is paid into court.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Forfeiture of Deposit, Counterclaim, Companies Ordinance S.357
Source Language
EN
Companies Law Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Security for Costs Forfeiture of Deposit Counterclaim Companies Ordinance S.357

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prima Luck Investments Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Wang Wen Hsi

1st Defendant/appellant

Ong Siu Ting

2nd Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (security for Costs Application) / Appeal From Master\u2019s Refusal; Interlocutory Judgment on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaintiff limited company must provide security for costs under s.357 of the Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the company\u2019s ability to raise funds to purchase property is relevant to its ability to pay an adverse costs order
  3. 3 Whether and to what extent a defendant\u2019s counterclaim affects the requirement for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs under s.357 was warranted because the court must secure defendants\u2019 costs of being sued where there is concern the plaintiff company may be unable to pay; the evidence did not justify the full sum sought, and counterclaims do not negate the purpose of s.357. The appropriate security was set at HK$400,000 and proceedings were stayed until that security was lodged.

Court Disposition

Order for security for costs in the sum of HK$400,000; proceedings stayed until security is paid into court.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay HK$400,000 into court as security for costs within 14 days
  • Proceedings stayed until the security is given