RE LIKE GRAND HOLDINGS LTD

RE LIKE GRAND HOLDINGS LTD

Although petitioners mis‑stated addresses in the petition (used business addresses), evidence established they had permanent residential addresses known to respondents and there was no intention to deceive or to evade litigation; respondents failed to satisfy requirements of O.23 r.1(c)/(d); application for security for costs dismissed; costs ordered as detailed.

Citation
RE LIKE GRAND HOLDINGS LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Chong Chi Yeung; Petitioner: Hui Ming Yeung; 1st Respondent: Like Grand Holdings Ltd; 2nd Respondent: China International Business Development (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2003
Case Number
HCCW603/2001
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition / Companies (winding Up) / Application for Security for Costs Under O.23 R.1
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Address for Service, Winding Up Petition, Companies Ordinance S.168 a
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Address for Service Winding Up Petition Companies Ordinance S.168 a

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chong Chi Yeung

Petitioner

Hui Ming Yeung

Petitioner

Like Grand Holdings Ltd

1st Respondent

China International Business Development (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition / Companies (winding Up) / Application for Security for Costs Under O.23 R.1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mis‑stated or unknown plaintiff/petitioner addresses justify an order for security for costs under O.23 r.1(c) or (d)
  2. 2 Whether the mis‑statement of address was innocent or intended to evade litigation consequences (O.23 r.1(2))
  3. 3 Whether petitioners had genuine residential addresses known to respondents

Ratio Decidendi

Although petitioners mis‑stated addresses in the petition (used business addresses), evidence established they had permanent residential addresses known to respondents and there was no intention to deceive or to evade litigation; respondents failed to satisfy requirements of O.23 r.1(c)/(d); application for security for costs dismissed; costs ordered as detailed.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Petitioners to have half of their costs in this application, to be taxed if not agreed