CELANESE ESTATES LTD. v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND ANOTHER

CELANESE ESTATES LTD. v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND ANOTHER

The court found the conditions of s.357 satisfied: the plaintiff is a shell company with no assets and appears funded by third‑party backers who could have provided security; the stifling argument and alleged delay failed on the facts; Master Souza's exercise of discretion and the quantum of HK$700,000 for security for costs were correct, so the appeal is dismissed and the order for security is upheld.

Citation
CELANESE ESTATES LTD. v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Celanese Estates Limited; 1st Defendant: Kung Kwok Wai David, executor of Kung Wong Sau Hin (deceased); 2nd Defendant: Princewell Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2000
Case Number
HCA6437/1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Companies Ordinance S.357 Security for Costs / Appeal From Master's Order to the Court of First Instance (complete Rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Order of Master Souza dated 2 May 2000 upheld.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Companies Ordinance S.357, Mortgagee Sale Surplus, Delay in Interlocutory Application
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Companies Ordinance S.357 Mortgagee Sale Surplus Delay in Interlocutory Application

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celanese Estates Limited

Plaintiff

Kung Kwok Wai David, executor of Kung Wong Sau Hin (deceased)

1st Defendant

Princewell Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Companies Ordinance S.357 Security for Costs / Appeal From Master's Order to the Court of First Instance (complete Rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is reason to believe the plaintiff company will be unable to pay the defendant's costs
  2. 2 Whether an order for security would stifle the plaintiff's claim
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the security application precludes the order

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the conditions of s.357 satisfied: the plaintiff is a shell company with no assets and appears funded by third‑party backers who could have provided security; the stifling argument and alleged delay failed on the facts; Master Souza's exercise of discretion and the quantum of HK$700,000 for security for costs were correct, so the appeal is dismissed and the order for security is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Order of Master Souza dated 2 May 2000 upheld.

Orders

  • Order of Master Souza made on 2 May 2000 will stand in its entirety.
  • Plaintiff ordered to give security for costs in the sum of HK$700,000.