SILVER STONE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU KWONG CHING, JAMES AND OTHERS

SILVER STONE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU KWONG CHING, JAMES AND OTHERS

The 1st plaintiff was held to be ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction because its raison d'être is to hold shares as a BVI nominee and thus 'keep house' in the BVI; it was also a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of the 2nd plaintiff; accordingly, on those grounds security for costs is just and the Master’s order for security of $800,000 is upheld.

Citation
SILVER STONE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAU KWONG CHING, JAMES AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Silver Stone Development Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Lui Yue Yun, Gary; 1st Defendant: Lau Kwong Ching, James; 2nd Defendant: Edward Kwok; 3rd Defendant: Carrier Stock Investment Company Limited; 4th Defendant: Ho Pun Tsun, Peter; 5th Defendant: Szeto Joseph
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2002
Case Number
HCA2206/2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Master's Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Yuen's order for security for costs affirmed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Ordinary Residence of a Company, Nominal Plaintiff, Conversion of Shares, Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Security for Costs Ordinary Residence of a Company Nominal Plaintiff Conversion of Shares Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silver Stone Development Limited

1st Plaintiff

Lui Yue Yun, Gary

2nd Plaintiff

Lau Kwong Ching, James

1st Defendant

Edward Kwok

2nd Defendant

Carrier Stock Investment Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Ho Pun Tsun, Peter

4th Defendant

Szeto Joseph

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Master's Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st plaintiff is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for the purposes of ordering security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the 1st plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of the 2nd plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether there is reason to believe the 1st plaintiff will be unable to pay the 3rd defendant's costs and the proper quantum of security

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st plaintiff was held to be ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction because its raison d'être is to hold shares as a BVI nominee and thus 'keep house' in the BVI; it was also a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of the 2nd plaintiff; accordingly, on those grounds security for costs is just and the Master’s order for security of $800,000 is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Yuen's order for security for costs affirmed

Orders

  • 1st plaintiff to give security for the 3rd defendant's costs in the sum of $800,000 within 21 days
  • All further proceedings stayed until security is given