CHINA NATIONAL ELECTRONICS IMPORT AND EXPORT SHENZHEN CO v. PRIME CARGO (H.K.) LTD

CHINA NATIONAL ELECTRONICS IMPORT AND EXPORT SHENZHEN CO v. PRIME CARGO (H.K.) LTD

Given the plaintiffs' prima facie strong contractual case, the existing security of HK$450,000 was sufficient and further security was not warranted; discovery should be limited and proportionate — paragraph 1 of the schedule was amended to require only the agreement containing or evidencing terms of the general arrangement, and discovery was ordered by affidavit rather than inspection at this stage.

Citation
CHINA NATIONAL ELECTRONICS IMPORT AND EXPORT SHENZHEN CO v. PRIME CARGO (H.K.) LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: China National Electronics Import and Export Shenzhen Company; 2nd Plaintiff: Dresdner Bank AG Shanghai Branch; 1st Defendant: Prime Cargo (H.K.) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hyundai Merchant Marine (Hong Kong) Limited; 2nd Defendant: N.Y.K. Line (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 April 2004
Case Number
HCCL78/2002
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and for Specific Discovery
Outcome
Application for further security for costs refused; application for specific discovery granted in limited form by affidavit only.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discovery, Misdelivery, Bill of Lading, Title to Sue, Quantification of Damages
Source Language
EN
Commercial Law Contract Tort Bailment Civil Procedure Admiralty/carriage of Goods Security for Costs Discovery +4 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China National Electronics Import and Export Shenzhen Company

1st Plaintiff

Dresdner Bank AG Shanghai Branch

2nd Plaintiff

Prime Cargo (H.K.) Limited

1st Defendant

Hyundai Merchant Marine (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Defendant

N.Y.K. Line (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and for Specific Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered beyond existing security
  2. 2 Whether the court should decide ultimate merits when ordering security for costs
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Given the plaintiffs' prima facie strong contractual case, the existing security of HK$450,000 was sufficient and further security was not warranted; discovery should be limited and proportionate — paragraph 1 of the schedule was amended to require only the agreement containing or evidencing terms of the general arrangement, and discovery was ordered by affidavit rather than inspection at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for further security for costs refused; application for specific discovery granted in limited form by affidavit only.

Orders

  • No further security for costs to be ordered; existing security of HK$450,000 (previously ordered) stands.
  • Paragraph 1 of the schedule to the summons amended to require discovery only of the agreement containing or evidencing terms of the general arrangement between plaintiff and Shanghai Kaixinda.