GOLDMARK AGENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD. AND OTHERS

GOLDMARK AGENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD. AND OTHERS

Given the admitted good arguable case (reinforced by Mareva orders) and the credible uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiffs' limited funds and inability to obtain third‑party funding, ordering security in any amount other than a nominal sum would probably stifle the plaintiffs' litigation; accordingly the appeal by defendants against the master's refusal to order security for costs is dismissed.

Citation
GOLDMARK AGENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER v. GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: GOLDMARK AGENTS LIMITED (in liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: WORLD CHAMP LIMITED (in liquidation); 1st Defendant: GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: YUNG KA PO; 3rd Defendant: START WIN LIMITED; 4th Defendant: AU KA FAI; 5th Defendant: NEW CHAMPION TRADING LIMITED; 6th Defendant: CHEUNG WAI YIN; 7th Defendant: LEUNG TSUI YU
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 June 2001
Case Number
HCA4200/1995
Procedural Posture
Company Liquidation / Civil Proceedings (claims for Avoidance of Dispositions; Constructive Trust; Mareva Injunction) / Appeal Against Master's Order for Security for Costs Under S.357 Companies Ordinance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; master's order refusing security for costs upheld
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Mareva Injunction, Voidable Disposition Under Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S.60(1), Constructive Trust, Issue Estoppel
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Property Law Injunctions Trusts and Equitable Remedies Security for Costs Mareva Injunction Voidable Disposition Under Conveyancing and Property Ordinance S.60(1) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GOLDMARK AGENTS LIMITED (in liquidation)

1st Plaintiff

WORLD CHAMP LIMITED (in liquidation)

2nd Plaintiff

GLOBAL FAIR INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

1st Defendant

YUNG KA PO

2nd Defendant

START WIN LIMITED

3rd Defendant

AU KA FAI

4th Defendant

NEW CHAMPION TRADING LIMITED

5th Defendant

CHEUNG WAI YIN

6th Defendant

LEUNG TSUI YU

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company Liquidation / Civil Proceedings (claims for Avoidance of Dispositions; Constructive Trust; Mareva Injunction) / Appeal Against Master's Order for Security for Costs Under S.357 Companies Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under s.357 Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether ordering security would stifle the plaintiffs' ability to pursue an admittedly good arguable claim
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs have means or third‑party funders sufficient to meet security

Ratio Decidendi

Given the admitted good arguable case (reinforced by Mareva orders) and the credible uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiffs' limited funds and inability to obtain third‑party funding, ordering security in any amount other than a nominal sum would probably stifle the plaintiffs' litigation; accordingly the appeal by defendants against the master's refusal to order security for costs is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; master's order refusing security for costs upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Master's order dated 2 April 2001 refusing defendants' application for security for costs is upheld