CHOW WING KUN AND ANOTHER v. POON TIK KA AND OTHERS

CHOW WING KUN AND ANOTHER v. POON TIK KA AND OTHERS

Security for costs was justified given the substantial and protracted nature of the litigation, multiple defendants and separate causes of action, the likelihood of expert evidence and senior and junior counsel, and risks arising from the plaintiffs' circumstances; but the original quantum was reduced to a global agreed figure of $200,000 after assessing the defendants' modest bills and by agreement between counsel.

Citation
CHOW WING KUN AND ANOTHER v. POON TIK KA AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHOW WING KUN (周永根); 2nd Plaintiff: CHOW PUI KUN (周培根); 1st Defendant: POON TIK KA (潘迪嘉); 2nd Defendant: CAI ZI MIAN (蔡自勉); 3rd Defendant: PAN DI FAN (also known as PAN TIK FAN); 4th Defendant: KINFORM LIMITED; 5th Defendant: SHUN FUNG TIMBER FACTORY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 November 2014
Case Number
HCA1465/2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Security for Costs Order / Interlocutory Appeal (from Master's Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; the earlier security order is varied and the parties agreed a global security payment of $200,000
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Conspiracy to Defraud, Forgery, Expert Evidence, Bankruptcy, Contempt
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Company Law Fraud Security for Costs Conspiracy to Defraud Forgery Expert Evidence +2 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHOW WING KUN (周永根)

1st Plaintiff

CHOW PUI KUN (周培根)

2nd Plaintiff

POON TIK KA (潘迪嘉)

1st Defendant

CAI ZI MIAN (蔡自勉)

2nd Defendant

PAN DI FAN (also known as PAN TIK FAN)

3rd Defendant

KINFORM LIMITED

4th Defendant

SHUN FUNG TIMBER FACTORY LIMITED

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Security for Costs Order / Interlocutory Appeal (from Master's Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a security for costs order should be made against the 2nd plaintiff
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of security for costs given complexity and anticipated expenses
  3. 3 Effect of a party being resident abroad on the need for security

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was justified given the substantial and protracted nature of the litigation, multiple defendants and separate causes of action, the likelihood of expert evidence and senior and junior counsel, and risks arising from the plaintiffs' circumstances; but the original quantum was reduced to a global agreed figure of $200,000 after assessing the defendants' modest bills and by agreement between counsel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; the earlier security order is varied and the parties agreed a global security payment of $200,000

Orders

  • Payment of a global sum of $200,000 from the plaintiff to the defendants as security for costs (order made)
  • Liberty to apply for further security if required in future