CHIU HSIUNG AND ANOTHER v. WANG CHAO HUANG AND OTHERS

CHIU HSIUNG AND ANOTHER v. WANG CHAO HUANG AND OTHERS

The application for further security was dismissed because the court will only re-open consent security orders sparingly and there was inadequate justification here: the 3rd defendant bore partial responsibility for the adjournment and consequent increased costs, no detailed breakdown demonstrated the existing HK$600,000 was insufficient on a party-and-party basis, and the plaintiffs' strong case reduced the need for further security.

Citation
CHIU HSIUNG AND ANOTHER v. WANG CHAO HUANG AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHIU HSIUNG (屈雄); 2nd Plaintiff: LIU WEN-HUI (劉文慧); 1st Defendant: WANG CHAO HUANG (王朝煌); 2nd Defendant: CHEN SHU CHUAN (陳森隆); 3rd Defendant: WONG KIN (黃健)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Case Number
HCA1974/2009
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dispute (civil) / Pre Trial Application for Further Security for Costs After Trial Adjournment
Outcome
Application for further security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Consent Orders, Adjournment, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Partnership Law Security for Costs Consent Orders Adjournment Taxation 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIU HSIUNG (屈雄)

1st Plaintiff

LIU WEN-HUI (劉文慧)

2nd Plaintiff

WANG CHAO HUANG (王朝煌)

1st Defendant

CHEN SHU CHUAN (陳森隆)

2nd Defendant

WONG KIN (黃健)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dispute (civil) / Pre Trial Application for Further Security for Costs After Trial Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order further security for costs following a trial adjournment
  2. 2 Whether existing security (HK$600,000) is inadequate
  3. 3 Whether the court should re-open a consent order for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further security was dismissed because the court will only re-open consent security orders sparingly and there was inadequate justification here: the 3rd defendant bore partial responsibility for the adjournment and consequent increased costs, no detailed breakdown demonstrated the existing HK$600,000 was insufficient on a party-and-party basis, and the plaintiffs' strong case reduced the need for further security.

Court Disposition

Application for further security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for further security for costs dismissed.
  • Order nisi: costs of the application to be paid by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed.