SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD AND OTHERS

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD AND OTHERS

Failure to furnish security for costs within the time ordered by the Court amounted to want of prosecution; the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings for such non-compliance; an application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal did not amount to prosecution because the Court of Appeal's order was not final for the purposes of s.22(1)(a) Cap.484; therefore dismissal of the action was appropriate and the appellate court affirmed the Master's dismissal order.

Citation
SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff/appellant (by Original Action); 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim): SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff/appellant (by Original Action): MACVIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff/appellant (by Original Action); 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim): HOPETOWN ASSETS LIMITED; 1st Defendant/respondent (by Original Action); 1st Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant/respondent (by Original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): CHAN NAI KANG, NATHANAEL; 3rd Defendant/respondent (by Original Action); 3rd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): HARBOUR FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim): LONGVILLE ASSETS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 February 2004
Case Number
HCA1178/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Interlocutory/master's Order (security for Costs) / Appeal Decision on Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order of Master Woolley dated 18 December 2003 that the action be dismissed affirmed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Inherent Jurisdiction, Finality of Judgment, Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Companies Law Appeals Security for Costs Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Inherent Jurisdiction Finality of Judgment Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LIMITED

1st Plaintiff/appellant (by Original Action); 1st Defendant (by Counterclaim)

MACVIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff/appellant (by Original Action)

HOPETOWN ASSETS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff/appellant (by Original Action); 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LIMITED

1st Defendant/respondent (by Original Action); 1st Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

CHAN NAI KANG, NATHANAEL

2nd Defendant/respondent (by Original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

HARBOUR FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant/respondent (by Original Action); 3rd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

LONGVILLE ASSETS LIMITED

3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Interlocutory/master's Order (security for Costs) / Appeal Decision on Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with an order to provide security for costs permits dismissal for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal constitutes prosecution of the action
  3. 3 Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings for non-compliance with an order under Companies Ordinance s.357

Ratio Decidendi

Failure to furnish security for costs within the time ordered by the Court amounted to want of prosecution; the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings for such non-compliance; an application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal did not amount to prosecution because the Court of Appeal's order was not final for the purposes of s.22(1)(a) Cap.484; therefore dismissal of the action was appropriate and the appellate court affirmed the Master's dismissal order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order of Master Woolley dated 18 December 2003 that the action be dismissed affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Action dismissed for want of prosecution following failure to provide security for costs within the time ordered