MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

Applications for security for costs were allowed because the plaintiffs, who are overseas and in liquidation, failed to demonstrate the very high threshold of a high degree of probability of success; the handwriting expert reports and CCTV recordings did not clearly or self-evidently undermine the judgments or satisfy the threshold; security was fixed at HK$750,000 for each application and costs were awarded against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis without a certificate for two counsel.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1936
Parties
Plaintiff (hccl 2/2016): Mayer Corporation Development International Limited; 1st Defendant (hccl 2/2016): Alliance Financial Intelligence Limited; 2nd Defendant (hccl 2/2016); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016): Chan Wai Dune Charles; 3rd Defendant (hccl 2/2016); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016): Lam Chin Chun; 4th Defendant (hccl 2/2016): Bumper East Limited; 5th Defendant (hccl 2/2016): Aspial Investment Limited; Plaintiff (hccl 17/2016); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Capital Wealth Finance Company Limited; 1st Defendant (hccl 17/2016 Original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): Lai Yueh-Hsing; 2nd Defendant (hccl 17/2016): Chan Lai Yin Tommy; 3rd Defendant (hccl 17/2016): Wang Ing Jye; 4th Defendant (hccl 17/2016): Koo Ming Shing; 5th Defendant (hccl 17/2016): Lee Chung Han; 4th Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016): Ku Siu Fun Alex; 5th Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016): Lee Kwok Leung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2024
Case Number
HCCL2/2016
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Applications in Two Related Commercial Actions / Decision on Security for Costs Applications and Directions
Outcome
Applications allowed in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Fraud Allegations, Handwriting Expert Evidence, CCTV Evidence, Costs Orders, Companies Ordinance S905, Appeal Evidence (ladd V Marshall)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Commercial Litigation Evidence Law Costs Law Security for Costs Fraud Allegations Handwriting Expert Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayer Corporation Development International Limited

Plaintiff (hccl 2/2016)

Alliance Financial Intelligence Limited

1st Defendant (hccl 2/2016)

Chan Wai Dune Charles

2nd Defendant (hccl 2/2016); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016)

Lam Chin Chun

3rd Defendant (hccl 2/2016); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016)

Bumper East Limited

4th Defendant (hccl 2/2016)

Aspial Investment Limited

5th Defendant (hccl 2/2016)

Capital Wealth Finance Company Limited

Plaintiff (hccl 17/2016); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Lai Yueh-Hsing

1st Defendant (hccl 17/2016 Original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Chan Lai Yin Tommy

2nd Defendant (hccl 17/2016)

Wang Ing Jye

3rd Defendant (hccl 17/2016)

Koo Ming Shing

4th Defendant (hccl 17/2016)

Lee Chung Han

5th Defendant (hccl 17/2016)

Ku Siu Fun Alex

4th Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016)

Lee Kwok Leung

5th Defendant (counterclaim HCCL 17/2016)

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Applications in Two Related Commercial Actions / Decision on Security for Costs Applications and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against foreign/liquidated plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a high degree of probability of success to resist security for costs
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of security for costs given overlapping issues

Ratio Decidendi

Applications for security for costs were allowed because the plaintiffs, who are overseas and in liquidation, failed to demonstrate the very high threshold of a high degree of probability of success; the handwriting expert reports and CCTV recordings did not clearly or self-evidently undermine the judgments or satisfy the threshold; security was fixed at HK$750,000 for each application and costs were awarded against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis without a certificate for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part

Orders

  • Security for costs assessed at HK$750,000 for each application (HCCL 2/2016 and HCCL 17/2016)
  • Costs awarded against Mayer BVI and Lai on a common fund basis without a certificate for two counsel