LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

Application for further security was dismissed because the petitioner, though resident abroad, has a valuable Hong Kong asset (15% shareholding in the company) from which costs can be recouped (by sale, dividend, charging order or offset against buy-out price), so security is not necessary; delay and excessive quantum supported refusal.

Citation
LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Lu Jun; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; 4th Respondent: 4th Respondent; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2012
Case Number
HCCW282/2010
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Sections 168 a and 177(1)(f) Companies Ordinance Cap.32 / Interlocutory Application for Further Security for Costs; Hearing and Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct, Buy Out Order, Derivative Proceedings, Validation Order
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Insolvency/winding Up Security for Costs Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct Buy Out Order Derivative Proceedings +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lu Jun

Petitioner

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

3rd Respondent

3rd Respondent

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

4th Respondent

4th Respondent

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Petition Under Sections 168 a and 177(1)(f) Companies Ordinance Cap.32 / Interlocutory Application for Further Security for Costs; Hearing and Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against a foreign petitioner
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has assets within the jurisdiction sufficient to negate the need for security
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking security and the quantum claimed should reduce or defeat the application

Ratio Decidendi

Application for further security was dismissed because the petitioner, though resident abroad, has a valuable Hong Kong asset (15% shareholding in the company) from which costs can be recouped (by sale, dividend, charging order or offset against buy-out price), so security is not necessary; delay and excessive quantum supported refusal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No further security for costs ordered
  • Costs of this application to be paid by the 1st and 3rd Respondents to the Petitioner