HUNG WING SAN, TONY v. KOO SHING SUN AND ANOTHER

HUNG WING SAN, TONY v. KOO SHING SUN AND ANOTHER

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for security for costs because the 1st respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for a substantial delay in bringing the application, the petitioner's principal assets were shown to be illiquid and situated in the Mainland, the amount of security sought was substantial and a significant proportion of costs had already been incurred, and an order would therefore cause real prejudice to the petitioner.

Citation
HUNG WING SAN, TONY v. KOO SHING SUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: HUNG WING SAN, TONY; 1st Respondent: KOO SHING SUN; 2nd Respondent: CHINA STAR ENTERPRISE HONG KONG LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2013
Case Number
HCCW350/2011
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Petition (s.177(1)(f) Companies Ordinance) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Non Residence and Assets, Delay and Prejudice, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Security for Costs Non Residence and Assets Delay and Prejudice Summary Assessment of Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HUNG WING SAN, TONY

Petitioner

KOO SHING SUN

1st Respondent

CHINA STAR ENTERPRISE HONG KONG LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Petition (s.177(1)(f) Companies Ordinance) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order security for costs given the petitioner is non-resident and allegedly has no substantial assets in Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether the 1st respondent's application was too late and therefore an abuse or tactical device causing prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner’s assets are sufficiently illiquid to make an order oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the application for security for costs because the 1st respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for a substantial delay in bringing the application, the petitioner's principal assets were shown to be illiquid and situated in the Mainland, the amount of security sought was substantial and a significant proportion of costs had already been incurred, and an order would therefore cause real prejudice to the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs of this application to be paid by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner