ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

On the evidence before the Court the 1st plaintiff is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong; his residence in Hong Kong adopted for settled purposes (including health and family) remains voluntary; accordingly no order for security for costs should be made against the 1st or 2nd plaintiffs and, alternatively, the defendants' unexplained delay in applying for security would have led the Court to refuse security.

Citation
ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: LARE SARE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: HO YUEN KI; 2nd Defendant: MOON VALLEY INC; 3rd Defendant: MAK SHUN MING MICHAEL aka MICHAEL ERIC ALEXANDER BOSMAN HOTUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2016
Case Number
HCA857/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Security for Costs Appeal / Interlocutory (pre Trial; Trial Fixed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master M Wong's order dated 5 April 2016 set aside
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Ordinary Residence, Stay of Proceedings, Trusts Claim, Delay in Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Trusts Costs Security for Costs Ordinary Residence Stay of Proceedings Trusts Claim Delay in Interlocutory Applications

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

Parties

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG

1st Plaintiff

LARE SARE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

HO YUEN KI

1st Defendant

MOON VALLEY INC

2nd Defendant

MAK SHUN MING MICHAEL aka MICHAEL ERIC ALEXANDER BOSMAN HOTUNG

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Security for Costs Appeal / Interlocutory (pre Trial; Trial Fixed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st plaintiff is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for the purpose of security for costs
  2. 2 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' delay in applying for security disentitles them or outweighs their entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the Court the 1st plaintiff is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong; his residence in Hong Kong adopted for settled purposes (including health and family) remains voluntary; accordingly no order for security for costs should be made against the 1st or 2nd plaintiffs and, alternatively, the defendants' unexplained delay in applying for security would have led the Court to refuse security.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master M Wong's order dated 5 April 2016 set aside

Orders

  • Master M Wong's Order dated 5 April 2016 requiring the plaintiffs to pay HK$12,000,000 into court as security for costs is set aside
  • Parties to be heard on the question of costs