WEILI SU AND ANOTHER v. SHENGKANG FEI AND OTHERS

WEILI SU AND ANOTHER v. SHENGKANG FEI AND OTHERS

The Court concluded on preliminary assessment that the Award was manifestly valid, plaintiffs' jurisdictional and pleading complaints lacked merit or were waived, there was credible risk of asset dissipation and deficient asset disclosure by the plaintiffs, and therefore in the exercise of its discretion the Court ordered security equal to 50% of the Award (US$6,850,000) as a condition for continuation of the setting aside application, failing which the application would be dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1257
Parties
1st Plaintiff: WEILI SU; 2nd Plaintiff: FLASH BRIGHT POWER LIMITED; 1st Defendant: SHENGKANG FEI; 2nd Defendant: RICHARD YUQIANG LU; 3rd Defendant: RANRAN XU
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Case Number
HCCT54/2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Interlocutory Security Hearing Pending Substantive Setting Aside Hearing
Outcome
Security ordered; plaintiffs' setting aside application to be dismissed unless security furnished
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Security for Enforcement, Jurisdiction, Public Policy, Enforcement of Awards
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Civil Procedure International Commercial Law Setting Aside Arbitral Award Security for Enforcement Jurisdiction Public Policy Enforcement of Awards

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WEILI SU

1st Plaintiff

FLASH BRIGHT POWER LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SHENGKANG FEI

1st Defendant

RICHARD YUQIANG LU

2nd Defendant

RANRAN XU

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Interlocutory Security Hearing Pending Substantive Setting Aside Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 existence and scope of arbitration agreement
  2. 2 composition of tribunal and appointment objections
  3. 3 failure to plead/particularize claims and fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded on preliminary assessment that the Award was manifestly valid, plaintiffs' jurisdictional and pleading complaints lacked merit or were waived, there was credible risk of asset dissipation and deficient asset disclosure by the plaintiffs, and therefore in the exercise of its discretion the Court ordered security equal to 50% of the Award (US$6,850,000) as a condition for continuation of the setting aside application, failing which the application would be dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Security ordered; plaintiffs' setting aside application to be dismissed unless security furnished

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to provide security within 7 days equal to 50% of the Award by payment of US$6,850,000 into court or by a guarantee issued by a bank in Hong Kong for that sum
  • Unless such security is furnished by 4pm on 14 May 2019, the Plaintiffs' application to set aside the Award shall be dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis