CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS

The court held the plaintiffs did not meet the high threshold required to show a high probability of success at trial sufficient to defeat security for costs; the handwriting reports and CCTV recordings did not incontrovertibly undermine prior judgments and could be contradicted or explained; accordingly both security for costs applications were allowed and security was assessed at HK$750,000 for each application, with costs ordered against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis and directions given for summary assessment and future conduct of the actions.

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); 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
HCCL17/2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Actions (hccl 2/2016 and HCCL 17/2016) / Interlocutory — Security for Costs Applications
Outcome
Both security for costs applications allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Fraudulent Judgment, Handwriting Expert Evidence, Cctv/video Evidence, Fresh Evidence/ladd V Marshall, Common Fund Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Evidence Fraud Security for Costs Fraudulent Judgment Handwriting Expert Evidence +3 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); 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

Commercial Actions (hccl 2/2016 and HCCL 17/2016) / Interlocutory — Security for Costs Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under O.23 r.1 RHC and s.905 Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated a high degree of probability of success sufficient to negate security for costs
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of security for costs where actions are related and issues duplicate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the plaintiffs did not meet the high threshold required to show a high probability of success at trial sufficient to defeat security for costs; the handwriting reports and CCTV recordings did not incontrovertibly undermine prior judgments and could be contradicted or explained; accordingly both security for costs applications were allowed and security was assessed at HK$750,000 for each application, with costs ordered against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis and directions given for summary assessment and future conduct of the actions.

Court Disposition

Both security for costs applications allowed

Orders

  • Security for costs ordered in HCCL 2/2016: Mayer Corporation Development International Limited to provide security of HK$750,000
  • Security for costs ordered in HCCL 17/2016: Lai Yueh-Hsing to provide security of HK$750,000