Read the full judgment text of HCCT38/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 24 April 2008 before Hon Burrell J.
Construction law — Security for costs — Companies Ordinance Cap. 32 s.357(1) — Specific discovery — Order 24 rule 7 Rules of High Court. Plaintiff subcontractor in four aluminium window contracts valued over $25 million claims $9 million owed; defendants claim a refund of $3.8 million. Defendants seek security for costs alleging plaintiff’s changed financial status and ability to pay costs is doubtful. Court finds plaintiff now undertakes only small maintenance contracts, has disposed of major assets, and a major shareholder is disengaged since 2005. Court grants security for costs at $1.5 million after balancing interests. Defendants’ application for specific discovery of documents related to other litigation and subcontractors refused as fishing expedition and irrelevant to pleaded issues. Defendants’ specific discovery summons dismissed with costs.
Legal issues: Security for costs under section 357(1) Companies Ordinance · Specific discovery application under Order 24, rule 7
Outcome: Order granted for security for costs at $1.5 million; defendants' application for specific discovery dismissed with costs