XCHRX UNIVERSAL HORIZON HOLDINGS LTD. v. SHI HAN WEN

HCMP 3887/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3887 OF 1999

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. This is the Defendant's appeal against the order of Master Barnes dated 25 November 1999 where she dismissed the Defendant's application for security for costs against the Plaintiff. The ground stated in the summons for such application is that the Plaintiff is ordinary resident out of the jurisdiction.

2. This action arose out of the dispute between Plaintiff and the Defendant as to whether the Defendant had wrongfully impeded the holding of a general meeting of a company called "Universal Horizon Investment Limited" (UHIL).

3. There is no need to go into the details of the respective allegations of one party against the other in the action. What are relevant to this appeal are:-

(a)		the hearing of the substantive application is scheduled to be on Wednesday 2 February 2000, some 3 1/2 working days from today;
(b)		the Plaintiff's solicitor deposed in an affirmation that the Plaintiff owns 90% of the shares in UHIL which in turn owns 2 Hong Kong companies and between the 3 companies they own the following assets:-
	(1)	an expensive residential property in Hong Kong situated at 51, Stubbs Road;
	(2)	bank deposit of over HK$15 million;
	(3)	bank deposit of over HK$700,000.

4. Ms Wee levied quite a number of criticisms on the evidence of the Plaintiff's solicitors including the following: the deponent has not given the sources of his information; the assets owned are only shares in companies and are not in a readily available form; the liabilities of the companies may exceed their assets.

5. The Defendant, together with other people associated with him, are directors of UHIL. Presumably he would have at least some knowledge of the assets and liabilities of UHIL. There is however no evidence filed by him over this question.

6. Ms Wee also submitted that the ownership of the 90% shares in UHIL is disputed and it may well be that they are not owned by the Plaintiff.

7. I do not think it is necessary to go into the details of the Plaintiff's assets within the jurisdiction save to say that the parties' arguments related thereto have been taken into account. Looking at the whole circumstance now (since this appeal is by way of actual re-hearing), in particular the proximity of the hearing date next week, I consider that the application for security should be refused. I say this without attributing fault to the Defendant since the summons was taken out in August 1999, about a month after the commencement of this action.

8. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of Ms Wee's skeleton submissions, she also relied on the ground that the address stated in the Originating Summons by the Plaintiff was incorrect (or not properly stated). However, this point was not pursued by Ms Wee during the course of the appeal and I only state it for the sake of completeness.

9. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.