SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD

SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant company had minimal issued capital and no known assets in Hong Kong creating a real risk it could not meet a costs order; the delay in making the application was not sufficient to defeat the application; the amount sought ($200,000 for both appeals) was excessive relative to the total amount involved ($98,000) and the confined nature of the issues, and the court fixed security at $20,000 per appeal to be provided by 2 March failing which the appeals shall be dismissed.

Citation
SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. PEARL DRAGON INVESTMENTS LTD
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Supremacy Trading Company Limited; Respondent/defendant: Asian Property Investments Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Pearl Dragon Investments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 February 2015
Case Number
HCSA57/2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Security for Costs on Appeal
Outcome
Security for costs granted in the sum of $20,000 for each appeal; appeals to be dismissed if security not provided by 2 March; costs in the cause of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Delay, Amount of Security, Small Claims Tribunal Appeals
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedural Costs Company Law Appeal Security for Costs Delay Amount of Security +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supremacy Trading Company Limited

Appellant/claimant

Asian Property Investments Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Pearl Dragon Investments Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Security for Costs on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered on appeal
  2. 2 What amount of security is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking security precludes ordering security

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant company had minimal issued capital and no known assets in Hong Kong creating a real risk it could not meet a costs order; the delay in making the application was not sufficient to defeat the application; the amount sought ($200,000 for both appeals) was excessive relative to the total amount involved ($98,000) and the confined nature of the issues, and the court fixed security at $20,000 per appeal to be provided by 2 March failing which the appeals shall be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Security for costs granted in the sum of $20,000 for each appeal; appeals to be dismissed if security not provided by 2 March; costs in the cause of the appeal.

Orders

  • Appellants to provide security of HKD 20,000 for each case by 2 March, failing which the appeals shall be dismissed.
  • Costs of this application: costs in the cause of the appeal.