KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

The Master’s exercise of discretion was correct: D2 failed to establish impecuniosity by full and frank disclosure and did not demonstrate a sufficiently probable likelihood of success to displace the usual order against a foreign plaintiff; the paid sum of $210,000 and the circumstances did not warrant interference with the quantum ordered.

Citation
KUN PENG I LTD AND ANOTHER v. WIN POWER INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Kun Peng I Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Kun Peng II Limited; 1st Defendant: Win Power Investment Limited (金力投資有限公司); 2nd Defendant: Lin Ming (林明); 3rd Defendant: Jointa Limited (駿鼎有限公司); 4th Defendant: Fujian Yuansheng Foods Industry Co., Ltd. (福建元盛食品有限公司); Third Party: Fabulous Turbo International Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 January 2016
Case Number
HCA475/2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal Against Master’s Order for Security for Costs / De Novo Hearing in Court of First Instance (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Plaintiff, Discretionary Relief, Impecuniosity, Full and Frank Disclosure, Quantum of Security
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Third Party Proceedings Foreign Plaintiff Discretionary Relief Impecuniosity Full and Frank Disclosure +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kun Peng I Limited

1st Plaintiff

Kun Peng II Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Win Power Investment Limited (金力投資有限公司)

1st Defendant

Lin Ming (林明)

2nd Defendant

Jointa Limited (駿鼎有限公司)

3rd Defendant

Fujian Yuansheng Foods Industry Co., Ltd. (福建元盛食品有限公司)

4th Defendant

Fabulous Turbo International Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal Against Master’s Order for Security for Costs / De Novo Hearing in Court of First Instance (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign third‑party plaintiff
  2. 2 Appropriate quantum of security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was impecunious and would be stifled by the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Master’s exercise of discretion was correct: D2 failed to establish impecuniosity by full and frank disclosure and did not demonstrate a sufficiently probable likelihood of success to displace the usual order against a foreign plaintiff; the paid sum of $210,000 and the circumstances did not warrant interference with the quantum ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to the third party to be taxed if not agreed