LIM YI SHENN v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS

LIM YI SHENN v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS

Recorder refused the Defendants' appeal and upheld the Master's refusal to order security for costs because (a) the plaintiff could not adduce additional affirmations on appeal where no cross-appeal was brought against the Master's refusal to admit them; (b) O.23 r.1(1)(a) is not rendered discriminatory by the Hong...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LIM YI SHENN v. WONG YUEN YEE AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: LIM YI SHENN; 1st Defendant: WONG YUEN YEE; 2nd Defendant: WONG YAO WING ROBERT; 3rd Defendant: INNO-TECH HOLDINGS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2012
Case Number
HCA1323/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (security for Costs) / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's decision refusing security for costs upheld
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Discrimination Under Bill of Rights, Misrepresentation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Human Rights Conflict of Laws (foreign Judgment Enforcement) Security for Costs Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments +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 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIM YI SHENN

Plaintiff

WONG YUEN YEE

1st Defendant

WONG YAO WING ROBERT

2nd Defendant

INNO-TECH HOLDINGS LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (security for Costs) / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order security for costs under O.23 r.1(1)(a) against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff may adduce additional affirmations on appeal where no cross-appeal was filed against the Master's rejection of those affidavits
  3. 3 Whether O.23 r.1(1)(a) is discriminatory under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and therefore constrains the exercise of the Court's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Recorder refused the Defendants' appeal and upheld the Master's refusal to order security for costs because (a) the plaintiff could not adduce additional affirmations on appeal where no cross-appeal was brought against the Master's refusal to admit them; (b) O.23 r.1(1)(a) is not rendered discriminatory by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights such that the Court's discretion is fettered; and (c) on the available evidence there was substantial reciprocity with Singapore and no evidence of enforcement difficulty or plaintiff impecuniosity sufficient to make it just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's decision refusing security for costs upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refusal to admit the plaintiff's 2nd and 3rd Affirmations on appeal (leave to adduce refused)