MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

The Master exercised her discretion to refuse security for costs: on the material before the court the Plaintiff (though foreign) had a demonstrably high probability of success based on affidavit and documentary evidence (notably emails and a signed document), the 1st Defendant's counterclaim substantially overlaps the Plaintiff's claim, and the defendants had not established sufficient grounds to justify ordering security; accordingly the Amended Summons for security for costs was dismissed.

Citation
MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Mark Clinton Sharp; 1st Defendant: Wong Chi Lik, Steven; 2nd Defendant: Chan Wai Ling, Iris
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2009
Case Number
HCA2215/2009
Procedural Posture
Action No. 2215 of 2009 (application for Security for Costs Under Order 23 R.1) / Chambers Hearing; Pre Trial (application for Security for Costs)
Outcome
Amended Summons for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Plaintiff, Mareva Injunction, Constructive Trust, Counterclaim, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Injunctions Partnership and Trusts Costs Foreign Plaintiff Mareva Injunction Constructive Trust +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Clinton Sharp

Plaintiff

Wong Chi Lik, Steven

1st Defendant

Chan Wai Ling, Iris

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action No. 2215 of 2009 (application for Security for Costs Under Order 23 R.1) / Chambers Hearing; Pre Trial (application for Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a foreign plaintiff should be ordered to provide security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's prospects of success are high enough to displace an order for security
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim covering substantially the same issues precludes an order for security

Ratio Decidendi

The Master exercised her discretion to refuse security for costs: on the material before the court the Plaintiff (though foreign) had a demonstrably high probability of success based on affidavit and documentary evidence (notably emails and a signed document), the 1st Defendant's counterclaim substantially overlaps the Plaintiff's claim, and the defendants had not established sufficient grounds to justify ordering security; accordingly the Amended Summons for security for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Amended Summons dismissed.
  • Proceedings to continue and parties to proceed expeditiously to Pre-trial Review in accordance with timetable set by Saunders J.