BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LTD. v. CAPITAL MORE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LTD. v. CAPITAL MORE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Because the defendants chose not to disclose the detailed grounds for alleging the plaintiff was dormant when requested, forcing an expensive exchange of affirmations, that concealment constituted a special circumstance justifying taxation of the plaintiff's costs on a common fund basis and immediate payment; accordingly the defendants' summons was dismissed and costs ordered to the plaintiff on that basis.

Citation
BINARY EVOLUTION COMPUTERS LTD. v. CAPITAL MORE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Binary Evolution Computers Limited; 1st Defendant: Capital More Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ma Wai Wah; 3rd Defendant: Treasure Area Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2001
Case Number
HCA8663/1997
Procedural Posture
Company Action (security for Costs Under S.357 Companies Ordinance) / Ruling on Summons for Security for Costs and Costs Assessment
Outcome
Defendants' summons for security for costs dismissed; costs to plaintiff to be taxed on a common fund basis and paid forthwith; certificate for counsel; no order requiring defendants' solicitors to show cause to pay costs personally.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Taxation of Costs, Common Fund Basis, Interlocutory Applications, Professional Conduct
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Security for Costs Taxation of Costs Common Fund Basis Interlocutory Applications Professional Conduct

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binary Evolution Computers Limited

Plaintiff

Capital More Company Limited

1st Defendant

Ma Wai Wah

2nd Defendant

Treasure Area Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company Action (security for Costs Under S.357 Companies Ordinance) / Ruling on Summons for Security for Costs and Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs under s.357 of the Companies Ordinance was justified
  2. 2 Whether the costs of the interlocutory summons should be taxed on a common fund basis
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' solicitors should be ordered to show cause to pay costs personally

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants chose not to disclose the detailed grounds for alleging the plaintiff was dormant when requested, forcing an expensive exchange of affirmations, that concealment constituted a special circumstance justifying taxation of the plaintiff's costs on a common fund basis and immediate payment; accordingly the defendants' summons was dismissed and costs ordered to the plaintiff on that basis.

Court Disposition

Defendants' summons for security for costs dismissed; costs to plaintiff to be taxed on a common fund basis and paid forthwith; certificate for counsel; no order requiring defendants' solicitors to show cause to pay costs personally.

Orders

  • Defendants' summons dismissed.
  • Costs of and occasioned by the defendants' summons, including costs of the hearing, to the plaintiff in any event to be taxed on a common fund basis and paid forthwith.