LOY THIN LOY AND ANOTHER t/a GALERIE NEW STAR v. CHRISTIE’S HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

LOY THIN LOY AND ANOTHER t/a GALERIE NEW STAR v. CHRISTIE’S HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

On the evidence before the court both claimants were, in substance, attackers for the purpose of security for costs; the court exercised its discretion to accept mutual undertakings in lieu of payments into court, fixing an amount of HK$200,000 as adequate security to cover each party's exposure to the other up to the conclusion of trial (if trial occurs within the stated period), and ordered that costs of the security applications be costs in the cause.

Citation
LOY THIN LOY AND ANOTHER t/a GALERIE NEW STAR v. CHRISTIE’S HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Loy Thin Loy; Plaintiff: Try Nhuc Cuong trading as Galerie New Star; 1st Defendant: Christie S Hong Kong Limited; 2nd Defendant: Fan Lai Fun
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Case Number
DCCJ5432/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Interpleader/ownership Dispute / Decision on Costs (appeal and Cross Applications for Security for Costs)
Outcome
Appeal and cross-applications resolved by agreement; mutual undertakings for security accepted and costs allocated as costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Ownership Dispute, Nominal Plaintiff, Jurisdictional Residence
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Interpleader Proceedings Security for Costs Ownership Dispute Nominal Plaintiff Jurisdictional Residence

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loy Thin Loy

Plaintiff

Try Nhuc Cuong trading as Galerie New Star

Plaintiff

Christie S Hong Kong Limited

1st Defendant

Fan Lai Fun

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interpleader/ownership Dispute / Decision on Costs (appeal and Cross Applications for Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs or the 2nd defendant are the 'attackers' for purposes of ordering security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs against parties resident out of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant is a nominal plaintiff acting for a non-resident third party

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the court both claimants were, in substance, attackers for the purpose of security for costs; the court exercised its discretion to accept mutual undertakings in lieu of payments into court, fixing an amount of HK$200,000 as adequate security to cover each party's exposure to the other up to the conclusion of trial (if trial occurs within the stated period), and ordered that costs of the security applications be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-applications resolved by agreement; mutual undertakings for security accepted and costs allocated as costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Both parties to provide mutual undertakings as security for costs in the sum of HK$200,000 to cover the opposite party's costs up to the conclusion of the trial (if trial occurs within the stated period).
  • No further applications for security for costs shall be made.