NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Petitioner is a nominal plaintiff lacking beneficial interest in the shares due to the charging order and sale; he is an undischarged bankrupt with no evidence of ability to pay. Therefore security for costs is appropriate in part: two-thirds of Parts 1A and 1B of the Skeleton Bill to be paid into court, with credit for prior payment, but no order now extending to prospective hearing costs.

Citation
NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Ng Yat Chi; 1st Respondent: Max Share Limited; 2nd Respondent: China Resources (Holdings) Company Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 1998
Case Number
HCCW321/1996
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up / Application for Security for Costs (interim)
Outcome
Application for security for costs allowed in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Nominal Plaintiff, Charging Order, Bankruptcy, Locus Standi
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Security for Costs Nominal Plaintiff Charging Order Bankruptcy Locus Standi

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ng Yat Chi

Petitioner

Max Share Limited

1st Respondent

China Resources (Holdings) Company Ltd.

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up / Application for Security for Costs (interim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is a nominal plaintiff lacking beneficial interest in the shares
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered and in what amount
  3. 3 Effect of the charging order and subsequent sale on beneficial ownership

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner is a nominal plaintiff lacking beneficial interest in the shares due to the charging order and sale; he is an undischarged bankrupt with no evidence of ability to pay. Therefore security for costs is appropriate in part: two-thirds of Parts 1A and 1B of the Skeleton Bill to be paid into court, with credit for prior payment, but no order now extending to prospective hearing costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs allowed in part

Orders

  • Order that two thirds of the amount set out in Part 1A and Part 1B of the Skeleton Bill be paid into court
  • Credit to be given for $350,000 previously paid by way of security