VIEWEXCEL LTD. v. PRIORITY GAME TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER

VIEWEXCEL LTD. v. PRIORITY GAME TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to require the plaintiff to furnish security for performance as a condition of not striking out the Statement of Claim; obligations of an assignee to secure or perform the head purchaser's liabilities are matters for determination at the decree stage; accordingly the strike out application and the request for security for performance were refused, but security for costs was justified and ordered in the sum of HK$1,200,000 and a speedy trial directed with specific timetabling orders.

Citation
VIEWEXCEL LTD. v. PRIORITY GAME TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Viewexcel Limited; 1st Defendant: Priority Game Trading Limited; 2nd Defendant: Mark Profit Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 January 2000
Case Number
HCA10809/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Specific Performance (contract/property) / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Security for Costs
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; application for security for performance refused; security for costs ordered; directions for a speedy trial given; costs nisi to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Security for Costs, Strike Out Application, Assignment/sub Sale, Case Management (speedy Trial)
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Security for Costs Strike Out Application Assignment/sub Sale +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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viewexcel Limited

Plaintiff

Priority Game Trading Limited

1st Defendant

Mark Profit Development Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Specific Performance (contract/property) / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court has jurisdiction to order security for performance as condition in a strike out application
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out for failing to give an undertaking to perform the assignor's obligations
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an impecunious plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to require the plaintiff to furnish security for performance as a condition of not striking out the Statement of Claim; obligations of an assignee to secure or perform the head purchaser's liabilities are matters for determination at the decree stage; accordingly the strike out application and the request for security for performance were refused, but security for costs was justified and ordered in the sum of HK$1,200,000 and a speedy trial directed with specific timetabling orders.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; application for security for performance refused; security for costs ordered; directions for a speedy trial given; costs nisi to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • 2nd defendant to file defence within 7 days
  • Plaintiff to file reply within 7 days thereafter