LIN MING v. CHEN SHU QUAN AND ANOTHER

LIN MING v. CHEN SHU QUAN AND ANOTHER

Plaintiff failed to make full disclosure of assets and thus did not discharge the burden to resist an order for further security; the defendant is entitled to further security but the requested quantum and scope were excessive, so the court ordered a top-up of $200,000 as security limited to the stage of setting down, stayed further proceedings pending payment and provided for striking out if payment not made.

Citation
LIN MING v. CHEN SHU QUAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Lin Ming; 1st Defendant: Chen Shu Quan; 2nd Defendant: Jointa Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Case Number
HCMP1631/2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory) / Interlocutory – Application for Further Security for Costs Up to Stage of Setting Down
Outcome
Further security for costs ordered in the sum of HKD 200000 up to the stage of setting down; proceedings stayed pending payment; failure to pay will result in striking out of claim; costs of application awarded to 1st defendant summarily assessed at HKD 80000 subject to set off.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Disclosure of Assets, Restoration of Directorship, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Inherent Jurisdiction Security for Costs Disclosure of Assets Restoration of Directorship Summary Assessment of Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lin Ming

Plaintiff

Chen Shu Quan

1st Defendant

Jointa Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory) / Interlocutory – Application for Further Security for Costs Up to Stage of Setting Down

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has made full disclosure of assets to resist security for costs
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum and temporal scope of security (up to setting down vs trial)

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to make full disclosure of assets and thus did not discharge the burden to resist an order for further security; the defendant is entitled to further security but the requested quantum and scope were excessive, so the court ordered a top-up of $200,000 as security limited to the stage of setting down, stayed further proceedings pending payment and provided for striking out if payment not made.

Court Disposition

Further security for costs ordered in the sum of HKD 200000 up to the stage of setting down; proceedings stayed pending payment; failure to pay will result in striking out of claim; costs of application awarded to 1st defendant summarily assessed at HKD 80000 subject to set off.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay further HKD 200000 into court within 14 days as security for costs up to stage of setting down, with liberty to apply for further security
  • All further proceedings stayed until payment of the further security except proceedings for payment into court