DR. PETE FASHIONS CO. LTD. v. C&C TEXTILES CORPORATION

DR. PETE FASHIONS CO. LTD. v. C&C TEXTILES CORPORATION

The master's exercise of discretion was correct and is affirmed: Dr. Pete failed to justify separate representation and to place evidence to quantify additional security beyond the HK$450,000 already secured; C&C had a strong probability of success on the account stated, so ordering security would risk stifling the claim; accordingly the application for security was properly dismissed.

Citation
DR. PETE FASHIONS CO. LTD. v. C&C TEXTILES CORPORATION
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant by Counterclaim: Dr. Pete Fashions Company Limited; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff by Counterclaim: C&C Textiles Corporation; 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim: Chiu Kin Hong
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 August 1996
Case Number
HCA6733/1995
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal of Security for Costs / Appeal From Master's Order (rehearing in High Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; order of Master Jennings dated 3 May 1996 affirmed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Order 23 Rule 1, Consolidation, Account Stated, Subrogation, Conflict of Legal Representation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Company Law Security for Costs Order 23 Rule 1 Consolidation Account Stated Subrogation +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Pete Fashions Company Limited

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant by Counterclaim

C&C Textiles Corporation

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Chiu Kin Hong

2nd Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal of Security for Costs / Appeal From Master's Order (rehearing in High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff by counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the defendant by counterclaim and the 2nd defendant were justified in having separate legal representation
  3. 3 Whether the parties acted mala fide to secure additional security by changing representation

Ratio Decidendi

The master's exercise of discretion was correct and is affirmed: Dr. Pete failed to justify separate representation and to place evidence to quantify additional security beyond the HK$450,000 already secured; C&C had a strong probability of success on the account stated, so ordering security would risk stifling the claim; accordingly the application for security was properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; order of Master Jennings dated 3 May 1996 affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of Master Jennings dated 3 May 1996 refusing security for costs against C&C Textiles Corporation affirmed