1.
By summons dated 31 January 2024, the defendants applied for security for costs pursuant to Order 23 rule 1(1)(a) of the Rules of the District Court,
Cap 336H
(“RDC”) to be provided by the plaintiff in the sum of HK$814,060 (“the Security Summons”).
2.
Subsequently, the defendants issued another summons on 12 July 2024 seeking leave to amend the Security Summons to the effect that the plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed forthwith in the event that the plaintiff fails to pay the security that may be ordered, without having the need to restore the proceedings before applying to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The defendants submitted that the automatic dismissal of the claims upon non-compliance with the order for security is a conventional order, as was endorsed by Ribeiro PJ in
Sunchase International Group (China) Ltd and Others v Vincor Group of Companies (Investment) Ltd and Others
, FAMV 21 of 2004, 22 February 2005
[1]
. Mr Phillip Georgiou, solicitor advocate for the plaintiff has fairly indicated that the plaintiff consents to this application. In the circumstances, I allowed the application.
3.
As for the Security Summons, there is no dispute that the plaintiff is a Dutch national who is resident in Thailand. The plaintiff has not provided any evidence of his assets in Hong Kong. The defendants submitted that he should not be allowed to mount a claim against the defendants without providing security, as otherwise the defendants would be exposed to a risk that any costs ordered against the plaintiff in the event his claim fails would be irrecoverable.
The parties’ cases
4.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants on 15 December 2021. According to the pleaded case of the plaintiff, by a contract made partly orally and partly in writing between 18 October 2019 and 25 November 2019 (“the Agreement”), the plaintiff had agreed to purchase 8,000 shares in the capital of the 1
st
defendant for US$100,000. The parties agreed that the shares would be registered in the name of the plaintiff immediately or shortly after receipt of payment of the consideration. At all material times, the issued share capital in the 1
st
defendant consisted of 10,000 ordinary shares with a total paid up capital of HK$10,000. The 10,000 shares have at all material times been held by the wife of the 2
nd
defendant, Madam Wong Sze Wan Linda (“Madam Wong”).
5.
The plaintiff’s case is that the sum representing the consideration for the shares was duly paid to the 1
st
Back
