TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM KA CHUNG WILLIAM AND OTHERS

TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM KA CHUNG WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Because the plaintiffs failed to prove sufficient assets within Hong Kong and the 1st defendant proved a real risk the plaintiffs would be unable to pay the defendant's costs given the defendant's cost estimates and the limited available assets, the judge exercised discretion under section 357 to order security for costs of HK$500,000 and stay proceedings until payment.

Citation
TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. LAM KA CHUNG WILLIAM AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CHUN SING CHINA LIMITED; 1st Defendant: LAM KA CHUNG, WILLIAM; 2nd Defendant: LEUNG YIM WAH, STEPHEN; 3rd Defendant: QUOCK LEUNG KIT WAH, ROSA; 4th Defendant (in Members Voluntary Winding Up): CAMFORD DEVELIPMENT LIMITED; 5th Defendant: CAMFORD HOLDINGS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: GOOD LEAD ASIA LIMITED; 7th Defendant: QUOCK WEI FENG, WINSON; 8th Defendant: QUOCK WEI YIN, WENDY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Case Number
HCMP4078/2003
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application Under Section 357 Companies Ordinance / Interlocutory Hearing in Chambers (appeal Against Master's Refusal)
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in the sum of HK$500,000 for the 1st defendant; stay until security given; costs to the 1st defendant
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Set Off of Costs, Jurisdiction, Ordinary Residence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Trusts Insolvency Security for Costs Impecuniosity Set Off of Costs +3 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TRUE RANK HOLDINGS LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CHUN SING CHINA LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

LAM KA CHUNG, WILLIAM

1st Defendant

LEUNG YIM WAH, STEPHEN

2nd Defendant

QUOCK LEUNG KIT WAH, ROSA

3rd Defendant

CAMFORD DEVELIPMENT LIMITED

4th Defendant (in Members Voluntary Winding Up)

CAMFORD HOLDINGS LIMITED

5th Defendant

GOOD LEAD ASIA LIMITED

6th Defendant

QUOCK WEI FENG, WINSON

7th Defendant

QUOCK WEI YIN, WENDY

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application Under Section 357 Companies Ordinance / Interlocutory Hearing in Chambers (appeal Against Master's Refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs under section 357 Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs possess assets within the jurisdiction sufficient to meet any costs order
  3. 3 Quantum of security required

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs failed to prove sufficient assets within Hong Kong and the 1st defendant proved a real risk the plaintiffs would be unable to pay the defendant's costs given the defendant's cost estimates and the limited available assets, the judge exercised discretion under section 357 to order security for costs of HK$500,000 and stay proceedings until payment.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in the sum of HK$500,000 for the 1st defendant; stay until security given; costs to the 1st defendant

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs must give security for costs of HK$500,000 for the 1st defendant within 21 days
  • Proceedings are stayed until the security is given