CHIU CHUI-I & ORS V TANG SHUO DEVELOPMENT CO LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV 2006-485-1824

CHIU CHUI-I & ORS V TANG SHUO DEVELOPMENT CO LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV 2006-485-1824

The first defendant's application for security for costs was dismissed because the threshold 'reason to believe' that the plaintiffs would be unable to pay costs was not established: three New Zealand resident plaintiffs provided unchallenged sworn affidavits demonstrating substantial unencumbered NZ assets (about $6,000,000 combined) and, given joint and several liability under r 50 and the absence of any evidence by the defendant of impecuniosity, security was not justified.

Citation
openlaw-f6c31371_66a2_4f1a_85d3_6c586388665b.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs: Chiu Chui-I & Ors; First Defendant: Tang Shuo Development Co Limited; Second Defendant: Kensington Swan; Third Defendant: Forest Harrison
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
3 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (shareholder Dispute; Security for Costs Application) / Interlocutory (security for Costs Application Prior to Protest to Jurisdiction Hearing)
Outcome
First defendant's application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Jurisdictional Protest, Joint and Several Liability, Residence for Procedural Purposes
Civil Procedure Company Law International Jurisdiction Costs Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Jurisdictional Protest Joint and Several Liability +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 Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiu Chui-I & Ors

Plaintiffs

Tang Shuo Development Co Limited

First Defendant

Kensington Swan

Second Defendant

Forest Harrison

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (shareholder Dispute; Security for Costs Application) / Interlocutory (security for Costs Application Prior to Protest to Jurisdiction Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered under r 60 High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the threshold 'reason to believe' that plaintiffs are unable to pay costs has been established
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum and duration of any security (limited to protest to jurisdiction hearing)

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant's application for security for costs was dismissed because the threshold 'reason to believe' that the plaintiffs would be unable to pay costs was not established: three New Zealand resident plaintiffs provided unchallenged sworn affidavits demonstrating substantial unencumbered NZ assets (about $6,000,000 combined) and, given joint and several liability under r 50 and the absence of any evidence by the defendant of impecuniosity, security was not justified.

Court Disposition

First defendant's application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Leave granted for late filing of plaintiffs' opposition to the security for costs application
  • Security for costs application dismissed