XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER

XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER

Where a petitioner is resident outside the jurisdiction and the merits are not so plain as to refuse security, the court will exercise its discretion to order security for costs against the petitioner; the company (2nd respondent) should not be ordered to provide security in these circumstances; taking into account the respondents' estimated costs, delay and other circumstances the appropriate security was fixed at HK$1,150,000 payable within an amended time period.

Citation
XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Xu Liu Chun; 1st Respondent: Wu Chang Jiang; 2nd Respondent: Jiang Yuan International Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Case Number
HCMP3166/2014
Procedural Posture
Company Petition (s.724 Companies Ordinance) / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Security for Costs); Petition Set Down for Trial
Outcome
Summons for security for costs granted against the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent in the sum of HK$1,150,000; 2nd respondent's application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Minority Shareholder Disputes, Quasi‑partnership, Account of Profits, Trusts Over Shares
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Minority Shareholder Disputes Quasi‑partnership Account of Profits Trusts Over Shares

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

Parties

Xu Liu Chun

Petitioner

Wu Chang Jiang

1st Respondent

Jiang Yuan International Development Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Petition (s.724 Companies Ordinance) / Interlocutory Hearing (application for Security for Costs); Petition Set Down for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a foreign petitioner should be ordered to give security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the company (2nd respondent) should be ordered to provide security
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner’s shares constitute available assets given the respondents' trust defence

Ratio Decidendi

Where a petitioner is resident outside the jurisdiction and the merits are not so plain as to refuse security, the court will exercise its discretion to order security for costs against the petitioner; the company (2nd respondent) should not be ordered to provide security in these circumstances; taking into account the respondents' estimated costs, delay and other circumstances the appropriate security was fixed at HK$1,150,000 payable within an amended time period.

Court Disposition

Summons for security for costs granted against the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent in the sum of HK$1,150,000; 2nd respondent's application dismissed.

Orders

  • Petitioner to give security for the 1st respondent's costs in the sum of HK$1,150,000 within 28 days
  • 2nd respondent's application dismissed with costs to the petitioner (costs in any event, to be taxed if not agreed)