ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD. v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI AND ANOTHER

ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD. v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI AND ANOTHER

Security for costs ordered because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the court that an order would probably stifle the claim; absent satisfactory evidence about the plaintiff's backers and funding, the court was entitled to infer that those backers could fund the security or might refuse to do so, and refusal by able backers is not a ground to defeat an order; HK$3.8 million was an appropriate quantified security given the estimated trial length and potential expert and other costs.

Citation
ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LTD. v. THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (in Liquidation; Original Plaintiff): Esquire (Electronics) Limited; Plaintiff (assignee of Cause of Action): Magic Score Limited; 1st Defendant: The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited; 2nd Defendant: Wayfoong Property Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2002
Case Number
HCA11077/1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Arising From Alleged Wrongful Sale of Company Asset / Interlocutory Hearing Before Trial (security for Costs Application)
Outcome
Order for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Assignment of Cause of Action, Stifling of Litigation, Funding by Backers
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Security for Costs Assignment of Cause of Action Stifling of Litigation Funding by Backers

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

Parties

Esquire (Electronics) Limited

Plaintiff (in Liquidation; Original Plaintiff)

Magic Score Limited

Plaintiff (assignee of Cause of Action)

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

1st Defendant

Wayfoong Property Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Arising From Alleged Wrongful Sale of Company Asset / Interlocutory Hearing Before Trial (security for Costs Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff company/assignee
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that an order for security would stifle the claim
  3. 3 Whether the resources of directors, shareholders or other backers should be regarded in assessing ability to meet security

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs ordered because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the court that an order would probably stifle the claim; absent satisfactory evidence about the plaintiff's backers and funding, the court was entitled to infer that those backers could fund the security or might refuse to do so, and refusal by able backers is not a ground to defeat an order; HK$3.8 million was an appropriate quantified security given the estimated trial length and potential expert and other costs.

Court Disposition

Order for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Security for costs ordered in the sum of HK$3,800,000
  • Costs of the security application to be the defendants' costs in the cause