NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

NG YAT CHI v. MAX SHARE LTD. AND ANOTHER

The application was dismissed because it was made too late, the Respondents gave no adequate explanation for the delay in delivering particulars, ordering further security at that stage would be unfair to the Petitioner and would disrupt the hearing; the Court therefore refused to order additional security and proceeded with the petition.

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 LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 1999
Case Number
HCCW321/1996
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition / Hearing (day 6) — Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Nominal Party, Delay and Abuse of Process, Bank Guarantees for Security
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Security for Costs Nominal Party Delay and Abuse of Process Bank Guarantees for Security

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG YAT CHI

Petitioner

MAX SHARE LIMITED

1st Respondent

CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition / Hearing (day 6) — Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are entitled to an order for further security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the application for security was made too late and oppressive
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner is a nominal party and thus requires security

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because it was made too late, the Respondents gave no adequate explanation for the delay in delivering particulars, ordering further security at that stage would be unfair to the Petitioner and would disrupt the hearing; the Court therefore refused to order additional security and proceeded with the petition.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed
  • Proceed with hearing of the Petition without delay