AAD AND ANOTHER v. BBF

AAD AND ANOTHER v. BBF

All orders for security were refused. A Hadkinson order was inappropriate because non-payment of civil debts did not constitute the type of contempt that impedes the course of justice here and because such an order would risk merely delaying resolution; AO s.86(4) was inapplicable as Hong Kong was both seat and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 698
Parties
1st Plaintiff: AAD; 2nd Plaintiff: AAE; Defendant: BBF
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 March 2024
Case Number
HCCT7/2023
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Security Application Hearing (interlocutory)
Outcome
Security Application dismissed; all orders for security refused; Order nisi that claimants pay respondent's costs of the Security Application on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not agreed
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Security for Costs, Hadkinson Order (refusal to Hear Until Contempt Purged), Anti Recognition Applications, Time Limits for Setting Aside Awards, Choice of Remedies
Source Language
en
Arbitration Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments and Awards International Commercial Law Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Security for Costs Hadkinson Order (refusal to Hear Until Contempt Purged) Anti Recognition Applications +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAD

1st Plaintiff

AAE

2nd Plaintiff

BBF

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Security Application Hearing (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Hadkinson order should be granted to bar the Anti-Recognition Application until respondent pays prior judgment sums and costs
  2. 2 Whether the court may require security for the sums due under the Quantum Awards or under prior judgments as condition to hear the Anti-Recognition Application
  3. 3 Whether the court may require security for the claimants' costs of opposing the Anti-Recognition Application

Ratio Decidendi

All orders for security were refused. A Hadkinson order was inappropriate because non-payment of civil debts did not constitute the type of contempt that impedes the course of justice here and because such an order would risk merely delaying resolution; AO s.86(4) was inapplicable as Hong Kong was both seat and enforcing court and no timely set-aside application had been made; RHC Order 73 r.10A must be exercised cautiously and the circumstances did not justify imposing substantial security or striking out the Anti-Recognition Application; security for costs was unjustified absent evidence of impecuniosity or a real risk of dissipation and foreign residence alone was insufficient to order...

Court Disposition

Security Application dismissed; all orders for security refused; Order nisi that claimants pay respondent's costs of the Security Application on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not agreed

Orders

  • Security Application dismissed
  • All orders for security refused