ARKO SHIP LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSMART INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LTD AND ANOTHER

ARKO SHIP LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSMART INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LTD AND ANOTHER

The defendant failed to prove the 1st plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, and the 2nd defendant's counterclaim constitutes an independent attacking claim such that it would be unjust to order security against the 2nd plaintiff; consequently the summons for security for costs is dismissed as against both plaintiffs and costs are ordered nisi in favour of the 2nd plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.

Citation
ARKO SHIP LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSMART INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: ARKO SHIP LEASING LIMITED (formerly ARKO SATELLITE LIMITED); 2nd Plaintiff: YINGGAO SHIPPING (H.K.) LIMITED (formerly ARKO SHIPPING LIMITED); 2nd Defendant: WINSMART INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Case Number
HCAJ213/2009
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Interlocutory Security for Costs Application / Summons for Security for Costs (interlocutory)
Outcome
Summons for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Residence/ordinary Residence, Order 23 Rule 1(1)(a), Companies Ordinance S357, Registration Under Part XI (s333), Counterclaim as Attacker
Source Language
EN
Admiralty Law Civil Procedure Companies Law Security for Costs Company Residence/ordinary Residence Order 23 Rule 1(1)(a) Companies Ordinance S357 Registration Under Part XI (s333) +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARKO SHIP LEASING LIMITED (formerly ARKO SATELLITE LIMITED)

1st Plaintiff

YINGGAO SHIPPING (H.K.) LIMITED (formerly ARKO SHIPPING LIMITED)

2nd Plaintiff

WINSMART INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Interlocutory Security for Costs Application / Summons for Security for Costs (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 1st plaintiff (BVI company) is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong for Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) purposes
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against 2nd plaintiff under s357 of the Companies Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant's counterclaim makes it an attacker so ordering security would be unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove the 1st plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong, and the 2nd defendant's counterclaim constitutes an independent attacking claim such that it would be unjust to order security against the 2nd plaintiff; consequently the summons for security for costs is dismissed as against both plaintiffs and costs are ordered nisi in favour of the 2nd plaintiff against the 2nd defendant.

Court Disposition

Summons for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Summons for security for costs dismissed against both plaintiffs
  • Costs order nisi: 2nd plaintiff to have its costs from the 2nd defendant