THOSOWIN PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. TUFNELL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

THOSOWIN PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. TUFNELL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Defendants must establish by credible testimony that the plaintiff companies will be unable to pay the defendants' costs; absent such proof on the balance of probabilities the court will not exercise its discretion to order security; even if impecuniosity were shown the court may refuse security on discretionary grounds such as a strong plaintiff case and inordinate delay.

Citation
THOSOWIN PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. TUFNELL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: THOSOWIN PROPERTIES LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: UNEARTH GOLD COMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TUFNELL INVESTMENT LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: VESTEY INVESTMENT LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: PAYSON CHA; 4th Defendant: ANTHONY LO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 1984
Case Number
HCA3637/1983
Procedural Posture
Company Action Security for Costs / Interlocutory Appeal (security for Costs)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Order 14 Judgment, Burden of Proof, Judicial Discretion, Delay as Factor
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Order 14 Judgment Burden of Proof Judicial Discretion Delay as Factor

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THOSOWIN PROPERTIES LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

UNEARTH GOLD COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

TUFNELL INVESTMENT LIMITED

1st Defendant

VESTEY INVESTMENT LIMITED

2nd Defendant

PAYSON CHA

3rd Defendant

ANTHONY LO

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company Action Security for Costs / Interlocutory Appeal (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under Section 357 of the Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether defendants discharged the evidential burden to show plaintiffs will be unable to pay costs
  3. 3 Whether the court's discretion to order security is unfettered or conditioned on credible testimony

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants must establish by credible testimony that the plaintiff companies will be unable to pay the defendants' costs; absent such proof on the balance of probabilities the court will not exercise its discretion to order security; even if impecuniosity were shown the court may refuse security on discretionary grounds such as a strong plaintiff case and inordinate delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Summons for security for costs refused