Read the full judgment text of HCCT 29/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 March 2016 before Hon Anthony Chan J.
Companies Ordinance — s.905 security for costs — Application by defendant Metta Resources Limited against plaintiff Chun Wo Building Construction Limited for security for costs on ground of alleged insolvency — Evidence showed Chun Wo’s financial position was unclear with last audited accounts dated 2012 indicating liquidity risk — After restructuring, plaintiff's parent company changed its name and major shareholding — Court found plaintiff remained a substantial construction entity actively trading and securing major contracts in 2015 — Undertaking from Pang family gave potential guarantee but did not conclusively establish inability to pay costs — Court emphasized that overlap between plaintiff’s claim and defendant’s counterclaim disfavoured security for costs — Application made late, two working days before trial, disrupting preparation and without reasonable explanation — Court declined to exercise discretion to order security for costs and dismissed application — Costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal issues: Security for costs under s.905 Companies Ordinance · Discretion to grant security given overlap between claim and counterclaim · Application delay and its impact
Outcome: Metta’s application for security for costs dismissed. Costs of the application to Chun Wo.
Cites 5 cases