FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU

FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU

The application for security for costs was granted; the court found the application was not unacceptably late, there was no clear strong prospect of success for the respondent, no evidential basis that an order would stifle the claim, and the defendants' proposed security was excessive. The court fixed security at HK$250,000 to be paid within 21 days as a fair sum to protect the defendants in the counterclaim.

Citation
FORM PASS LTD v. CHONG PAK CHIU
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (by Counterclaim): Form Pass Limited; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): Chong Pak Chiu; Defendant (by Counterclaim): Leung Kwok Hung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Case Number
HCA574/2002
Procedural Posture
Injunction for Nuisance (original Action) and Counterclaim for Alleged Cheating/claims for Sums by Cheque / Security for Costs Application (pre Trial/interim) Heard 14 May 2003
Outcome
Security for costs ordered in the counterclaim
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Counterclaim, Nuisance, Apportionment of Costs, Impecuniosity/stifling
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Injunction Commercial Tort/fraud Security for Costs Counterclaim Nuisance Apportionment of Costs +1 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Form Pass Limited

Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Chong Pak Chiu

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

Leung Kwok Hung

Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Injunction for Nuisance (original Action) and Counterclaim for Alleged Cheating/claims for Sums by Cheque / Security for Costs Application (pre Trial/interim) Heard 14 May 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for security for costs was made too late
  2. 2 Whether the merits/prospects of success preclude ordering security
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's financial position would make an order stifle the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was granted; the court found the application was not unacceptably late, there was no clear strong prospect of success for the respondent, no evidential basis that an order would stifle the claim, and the defendants' proposed security was excessive. The court fixed security at HK$250,000 to be paid within 21 days as a fair sum to protect the defendants in the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered in the counterclaim

Orders

  • Plaintiff in the counterclaim (Chong Pak Chiu) ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of HK$250,000 within 21 days.