CHOI SZE FAI v. PRETTY FULL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

CHOI SZE FAI v. PRETTY FULL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Master Wong acted within jurisdiction in ordering further security for costs of HK$500,000 and in providing for the sanction of staying the appeal if security was not furnished; the plaintiff's case did not demonstrate a high probability of success to preclude security and the appeal against Master Wong's order is therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
CHOI SZE FAI v. PRETTY FULL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (as Trustee of the Property for Lam Lai Kuen): Choi Sze Fai; 1st Defendant: Pretty Full Development Limited; 2nd Defendant: Li Mel Chong, Liza; 3rd Defendant: Li Choi; 4th Defendant: Safeton International Limited; 5th Defendant: Super Carpo Limited; 6th Defendant: Wellkind Investment Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 2001
Case Number
HCA10132/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract, Misrepresentation, Fraud, Conspiracy, Security for Costs / Appeal From Masters' Orders (security for Costs and Striking Out)
Outcome
Appeal against Master Wong's order dismissed; 1st Appeal stayed for non‑payment of ordered security
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Striking Out, Stay of Proceedings, Appeal From Master's Orders, Jurisdiction/ultra Vires, Assignment of Contractual Rights, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Property Law Insolvency/bankruptcy Law Tort Deceit/fraud Security for Costs Striking Out Stay of Proceedings +4 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Choi Sze Fai

Plaintiff (as Trustee of the Property for Lam Lai Kuen)

Pretty Full Development Limited

1st Defendant

Li Mel Chong, Liza

2nd Defendant

Li Choi

3rd Defendant

Safeton International Limited

4th Defendant

Super Carpo Limited

5th Defendant

Wellkind Investment Limited

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract, Misrepresentation, Fraud, Conspiracy, Security for Costs / Appeal From Masters' Orders (security for Costs and Striking Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Master Wong had jurisdiction to order further security for costs and to stay the appeal for non‑payment
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the plaintiff's case were so strong as to preclude ordering security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the 4th to 6th defendants could be liable for alleged pre‑transfer misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

Master Wong acted within jurisdiction in ordering further security for costs of HK$500,000 and in providing for the sanction of staying the appeal if security was not furnished; the plaintiff's case did not demonstrate a high probability of success to preclude security and the appeal against Master Wong's order is therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal against Master Wong's order dismissed; 1st Appeal stayed for non‑payment of ordered security

Orders

  • Appeal against Master Wong's Order dismissed with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
  • 1st Appeal is stayed because further security for costs of HK$500,000 ordered by Master Wong has not been provided.