POLAR FURS LTD AND ANOTHER v. INTERNATIONAL FUR CO LTD AND OTHERS

POLAR FURS LTD AND ANOTHER v. INTERNATIONAL FUR CO LTD AND OTHERS

The mere addition of a Hong Kong co-plaintiff did not entitle the plaintiffs to release the security because the amended pleading introduced alternative bases of liability (agency and principal capacity) creating the possibility of separate or aliquot costs orders; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse release of the $200,000.

Citation
POLAR FURS LTD AND ANOTHER v. INTERNATIONAL FUR CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Polar Furs Ltd; 2nd Plaintiff: Cyril Murkin (HK) Ltd; 1st Defendant: International Fur Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: International Fur (Group) Limited; 3rd Defendant: William Fong Kwok Fei
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 May 2007
Case Number
HCA2042/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt and Security for Costs / Application to Release Security for Costs After Summary Judgment; Enforcement Stage
Outcome
Application dismissed; security for costs not released.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Summary Judgment, Costs Orders, Amendment of Pleadings, Agency and Pleading Alternatives
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Contract Enforcement Summary Judgment Costs Orders Amendment of Pleadings Agency and Pleading Alternatives

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Polar Furs Ltd

1st Plaintiff

Cyril Murkin (HK) Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

International Fur Company Limited

1st Defendant

International Fur (Group) Limited

2nd Defendant

William Fong Kwok Fei

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt and Security for Costs / Application to Release Security for Costs After Summary Judgment; Enforcement Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be released after addition of a Hong Kong co-plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether an amended pleading alleging agency and alternative principal capacity negates joint liability for costs
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs should bear defendants' costs of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The mere addition of a Hong Kong co-plaintiff did not entitle the plaintiffs to release the security because the amended pleading introduced alternative bases of liability (agency and principal capacity) creating the possibility of separate or aliquot costs orders; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse release of the $200,000.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; security for costs not released.

Orders

  • Application dismissed; payment of security of $200,000 shall remain in court
  • Order nisi that the Plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the 1st and 3rd Defendants in relation to the application for release of the security, including costs reserved on 30 March 2007 and the hearing on 3 May 2007, to be taxed if not agreed