SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD

Leave under section 22(1)(a) was refused because on the applications test the matter was not a final judgment and the judge below was entitled to dismiss the action for want of prosecution for failure to provide security for costs; the issue was not of sufficient general public importance to justify leave.

Citation
SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim); Applicant: SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LIMITED formerly known as SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS (CHINA) LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff (original Action): MACVIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): HOPETOWN ASSETS LIMITED; 1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim); Respondent: VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim); Respondent: CHAN NAI KANG, NATHANAEL; 3rd Defendant (original Action); 3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim); Respondent: HARBOUR FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): LONGVILLE ASSETS LIMITED
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2004
Case Number
CACV64/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 22(1)(a) (appeal From HCA No.1178/1995)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal under section 22(1)(a) refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory V Final Judgment, Applications Test, Want of Prosecution, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal Under S.22(1)(a)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Interlocutory V Final Judgment Applications Test Want of Prosecution Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Under S.22(1)(a)

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LIMITED formerly known as SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS (CHINA) LIMITED

1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim); Applicant

MACVIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff (original Action)

HOPETOWN ASSETS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff (original Action); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LIMITED

1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim); Respondent

CHAN NAI KANG, NATHANAEL

2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim); Respondent

HARBOUR FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant (original Action); 3rd Plaintiff (counterclaim); Respondent

LONGVILLE ASSETS LIMITED

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 22(1)(a) (appeal From HCA No.1178/1995)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted under section 22(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the contested decision was a final judgment or interlocutory
  3. 3 Whether the judge could dismiss for want of prosecution for failure to provide security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under section 22(1)(a) was refused because on the applications test the matter was not a final judgment and the judge below was entitled to dismiss the action for want of prosecution for failure to provide security for costs; the issue was not of sufficient general public importance to justify leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal under section 22(1)(a) refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(a) refused