SPECTRUM PLUS LTD AND ANOTHER v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (HK) LTD
- Citation
- SPECTRUM PLUS LTD AND ANOTHER v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (HK) LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 June 2007
- Posture
- Civil Action (action No. 10364 of 2000) / Ruling on Amount of Security for Costs (order Nisi)
- Case number
- HCA10364/2000
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 June 2007
- Posture
- Civil Action (action No. 10364 of 2000) / Ruling on Amount of Security for Costs (order Nisi)
- Case number
- HCA10364/2000
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The judge exercised discretion to set security for costs at HKD 600,000 because the case was not factually complicated, was unlikely to take as long as the defendant estimated, and might settle before trial; the sum must be paid into court within 14 days and incidental costs of correspondence are to be to the defendant; the costs order is made nisi.
Court disposition
Security for costs ordered in the amount of HKD 600,000; payment into court within 14 days; incidental correspondence costs to be to the defendant; costs order nisi.
Orders
- Defendant's summons granted in the amount of HKD 600,000 as security for costs.
- HKD 600,000 to be paid into court within 14 days of the ruling date (29 June 2007).
- Any additional costs relating to correspondence leading to this ruling to be to the Defendant.
- Order for costs to be an order nisi.
02
Material facts
Parties
Spectrum Plus Limited
1st Plaintiff Counsel: Jose Antonio Maurellet instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & GilbertSports Activities Limited
2nd Plaintiff Counsel: Jose Antonio Maurellet instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & GilbertKonica Minolta Business Solutions (HK) Limited
Defendant Counsel: Lawrence Ng instructed by Robert Lee Law OfficesAmounts and remedies
- Security for Costs: HKD 600,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action (action No. 10364 of 2000) / Ruling on Amount of Security for Costs (order Nisi)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether security for costs should be ordered
- 02
What amount of security for costs is appropriate
- 03
Whether costs of correspondence leading to the ruling should be paid and by whom
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defendant argued that security for costs should be set at a figure based on its estimate of the time and costs of the action and sought a substantial sum.
- Respondent
- Plaintiffs contended that the case is not factually complicated and is unlikely to take as long as the defendant estimated and that a lower sum is appropriate.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
High Court inherent jurisdiction / civil procedure principles (Hong Kong)
Court has discretion to order security for costs where appropriate and to determine the amount.
- 02
High Court practice and costs rules (Hong Kong)
Costs incidental to making an order (including correspondence leading to the ruling) may be awarded to the successful party; costs orders may be made nisi.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The judge exercised discretion to set security for costs at HKD 600,000 because the case was not factually complicated, was unlikely to take as long as the defendant estimated, and might settle before trial; the sum must be paid into court within 14 days and incidental costs of correspondence are to be to the defendant; the costs order is made nisi.
Obiter and limits
- The case itself is not factually complicated.
- There is a prospect that the action may settle before trial.
- Additional costs likely relate only to exchanges of correspondence between the parties' solicitors and with the court.
Court disposition
Security for costs ordered in the amount of HKD 600,000; payment into court within 14 days; incidental correspondence costs to be to the defendant; costs order nisi.
- Defendant's summons granted in the amount of HKD 600,000 as security for costs.
- HKD 600,000 to be paid into court within 14 days of the ruling date (29 June 2007).
- Any additional costs relating to correspondence leading to this ruling to be to the Defendant.
- Order for costs to be an order nisi.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 29 June 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 29 June 2007
bjbj HCA 10364/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 10364 OF 2000 ____
BETWEEN SPECTRUM PLUS LIMITED 1st Plaintiff SPORTS ACTIVITIES LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff and KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS Defendant SOLUTIONS (HK) LIMITED ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers Date of Ruling (Handed Down): 29 June 2007 __
R U L I N G __ The parties not having agreed on the amount of security which I have ordered the Plaintiff companies to provide, I am now required to set the amount myself. It seems to me that the proper sum to order would be $600,000. I do not believe that this case will take as long as the Defendant has suggested in its bill of costs. The case itself is not factually complicated and I have also taken into account the prospect that the action may settle before trial. Accordingly, the Defendant will have an order in terms of its summons in the amount of $600,000 which must be paid into court within 14 days of today. If there are any additional costs, which probably only relate to exchanges of correspondence between the parties solicitors and with the court leading to the making of this particular ruling, then these must be to the Defendant in any event. This order for costs will be an order nisi. (Ian Carlson) Deputy High Court Judge Jose Antonio Maurellet, instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Lawrence Ng, instructed by Robert Lee Law Offices, for the Defendant
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk i$&`G Carlson-HCA.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.