CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

The judge allowed the appeal, set aside Master Chow's dismissal and ordered security for costs of HK$1,000,000 for costs incurred up to 9 September 2013 because the plaintiffs are foreign and impecunious, the delay in applying for security was not sufficiently prejudicial or dilatory to bar the order, the counterclaim was insignificant compared with the plaintiffs' claims and did not justify refusal, the court will not resolve merits at interlocutory stage, and the presented bill was excessive and inadequately particularised so a reduced security figure was appropriate.

Citation
CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION; 2nd Plaintiff: CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (BVI) LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) LIMITED; 4th Plaintiff: 双巍信息技术(上海)有限公司 YUPEI TRAINING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 语培信息科技(上海)有限公司; 5th Plaintiff: CHINACAST (BEIJING) EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 盛世汉洋(北京)教育科技有限公司; 1st Defendant: CHAN TZE NGON (陳子昂); 2nd Defendant: ANTONIO SENA; 3rd Defendant: MA JIM LOK JIM (馬詹諾); 4th Defendant: JIANG XIANGYUAN (江祥源); 5th Defendant: FU WAI FAN (傳慧芬); 6th Defendant: WONG DORA WING MAY (黃詠薇); 7th Defendant: KWOK SHUK YIN (郭淑賢); 8th Defendant: CHIN SWE DEE; 9th Defendant: THRIVING BLUE LIMITED; 10th Defendant: BEST DESTINY LIMITED; 11th Defendant: ISTHOCH ASSETS LIMITED; 12th Defendant: CAST GREAT LIMITED; 13th Defendant: NEW SHANGHAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 September 2014
Case Number
HCA1062/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Security for Costs Application and Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Master Chow's Dismissal of Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Master Chow set aside; security for costs ordered
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Counterclaim and Set Off, Impecuniosity, Delay in Bringing Interlocutory Application, Assessment of Merits at Interlocutory Stage, Mareva Injunction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Employment Law Contract Fraud Costs Security for Costs Counterclaim and Set Off Impecuniosity +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION

1st Plaintiff

CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (BVI) LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

双巍信息技术(上海)有限公司 YUPEI TRAINING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 语培信息科技(上海)有限公司

4th Plaintiff

CHINACAST (BEIJING) EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 盛世汉洋(北京)教育科技有限公司

5th Plaintiff

CHAN TZE NGON (陳子昂)

1st Defendant

ANTONIO SENA

2nd Defendant

MA JIM LOK JIM (馬詹諾)

3rd Defendant

JIANG XIANGYUAN (江祥源)

4th Defendant

FU WAI FAN (傳慧芬)

5th Defendant

WONG DORA WING MAY (黃詠薇)

6th Defendant

KWOK SHUK YIN (郭淑賢)

7th Defendant

CHIN SWE DEE

8th Defendant

THRIVING BLUE LIMITED

9th Defendant

BEST DESTINY LIMITED

10th Defendant

ISTHOCH ASSETS LIMITED

11th Defendant

CAST GREAT LIMITED

12th Defendant

NEW SHANGHAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED

13th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Security for Costs Application and Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Master Chow's Dismissal of Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against foreign plaintiffs under O 23 r 1(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether delay in making the security for costs application precludes ordering security
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim defeats an order for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge allowed the appeal, set aside Master Chow's dismissal and ordered security for costs of HK$1,000,000 for costs incurred up to 9 September 2013 because the plaintiffs are foreign and impecunious, the delay in applying for security was not sufficiently prejudicial or dilatory to bar the order, the counterclaim was insignificant compared with the plaintiffs' claims and did not justify refusal, the court will not resolve merits at interlocutory stage, and the presented bill was excessive and inadequately particularised so a reduced security figure was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Master Chow set aside; security for costs ordered

Orders

  • Set aside the order of Master Chow dismissing the application for security for costs
  • Order security for costs in the sum of HK$1,000,000 to be provided by the plaintiffs in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of costs incurred up to 9 September 2013