SUGISAKI KISO CO., LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

SUGISAKI KISO CO., LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Security for costs was refused because the plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of probability of success on the merits based on a prior, closely analogous judgment (Maruken) in which the same defences failed, making it unjust to order security against an out‑of‑jurisdiction plaintiff.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SUGISAKI KISO CO., LTD v. HSIN CHONG CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Sugisaki Kiso Co., Ltd; 1st Defendant: Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Lam Kam Keung Frankie
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 June 2017
Case Number
HCCT13/2017
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs (decision)
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Conversion, Jurisdiction (out of Jurisdiction Plaintiff), Prospects of Success, Estoppel
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Construction Law Property Law Commercial Litigation Security for Costs Conversion Jurisdiction (out of Jurisdiction Plaintiff) Prospects of Success +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sugisaki Kiso Co., Ltd

Plaintiff

Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited

1st Defendant

Lam Kam Keung Frankie

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order security for costs under Order 23, rule 1 against an out‑of‑jurisdiction plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has an arguable defence such that security should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether a prior judgment (Maruken) disposing of virtually identical issues means the plaintiff has a high probability of success making security unjust

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because the plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of probability of success on the merits based on a prior, closely analogous judgment (Maruken) in which the same defences failed, making it unjust to order security against an out‑of‑jurisdiction plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs refused.
  • Costs to be summarily assessed and payable forthwith.