BUGSY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

BUGSY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was evidence suggesting the plaintiff might be a nominal vehicle, the plaintiff produced management (and forthcoming audited) accounts indicating sufficient assets so that the court could not be satisfied it was likely the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs; accordingly it was not just to stay proceedings or extend time pending determination of the security for costs application, and the Master’s order was upheld with a reduction of the extension to 14 days to file and serve the defence.

Citation
BUGSY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Bugsy Development Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hyundai Marine Equipment (H.K.) Limited (formerly Winning Touch Limited)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2002
Case Number
HCA5307/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Contractual Dispute and Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master Yeung's Order for Extension of Time and Concurrent Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Yeung's order of 25 January 2002 upheld subject to variation
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Nominal Plaintiff, Extension of Time, Stay of Proceedings, Specific Performance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Contract Law Security for Costs Nominal Plaintiff Extension of Time Stay of Proceedings Specific Performance

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bugsy Development Company Limited

Plaintiff

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company Limited

1st Defendant

Hyundai Marine Equipment (H.K.) Limited (formerly Winning Touch Limited)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contractual Dispute and Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory Appeal Against Master Yeung's Order for Extension of Time and Concurrent Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff for the benefit of a third party and unable to pay costs
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed and the defendants' time to file a defence extended pending determination of the security for costs application
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in extending time for filing a defence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although there was evidence suggesting the plaintiff might be a nominal vehicle, the plaintiff produced management (and forthcoming audited) accounts indicating sufficient assets so that the court could not be satisfied it was likely the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs; accordingly it was not just to stay proceedings or extend time pending determination of the security for costs application, and the Master’s order was upheld with a reduction of the extension to 14 days to file and serve the defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Yeung's order of 25 January 2002 upheld subject to variation

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Master Yeung's order stands except defendants are granted 14 days from date of this judgment to file and serve their defence