HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GINO L. LIN AND ANOTHER

HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GINO L. LIN AND ANOTHER

The appeals were dismissed because the court correctly exercised its discretion to order security for costs: the plaintiff was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for these purposes, failed to prove that his Hong Kong assets were fixed and certainly available for costs, and the master validly entered peremptory judgment for failure to give security; there was no credible evidence he was misled or denied an opportunity to be heard.

Citation
HOOGLAND HENDRICUS ANTONIUS v. GINO L. LIN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: First Defendant; 2nd Defendant (d2): Second Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2008
Case Number
HCA657/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Banking/contract / Appeal From Master's Orders (security for Costs and Peremptory Judgment)
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peremptory Judgment, Forged Instructions, Letter of Indemnity, Ordinary Residence, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Banking Law Conflict of Laws Evidence Security for Costs Peremptory Judgment Forged Instructions +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

1st Defendant

Second Defendant

2nd Defendant (d2)

Procedural Posture

Civil Banking/contract / Appeal From Master's Orders (security for Costs and Peremptory Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction for purposes of security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has assets within the jurisdiction that are sufficiently fixed and available for costs
  3. 3 Whether the master erred in entering peremptory judgment for failure to give security without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the court correctly exercised its discretion to order security for costs: the plaintiff was not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for these purposes, failed to prove that his Hong Kong assets were fixed and certainly available for costs, and the master validly entered peremptory judgment for failure to give security; there was no credible evidence he was misled or denied an opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay costs to 2nd Defendant to be taxed if not agreed