IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No.  HBC 75 of 2021

JINA SHAW of 246 Bridge Street, Metuchen, NJ 08840, USA.
1st PLAINTIFF

CHEN SHEN of 2-102, Building No. 7, No. 10 South Dongfeng Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China
2nd PLAINTIFF

HAIQIONG GU of Office, 21 Liang Ma Qiao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
3rd PLAINTIFF

HUI WANG of 1-1-401, District 1, South West Huangcheng Town, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
4th PLAINTIFF

HUI WANG of 1-1-401, District 1, South West Huangcheng Town, Xicheng District, Beijing, China as mother and “next friend” of JIAXI SHI of 1-1-401, District 1, South West Huangcheng Town, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
5th PLAINTIFF

FEI CHEN of Talent Market Building, Baoan North Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China.
6th PLAINTIFF

CHAO SONG of Room 101, Block 1, Building 1, No. 38 Heping Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, China.
7th PLAINTIFF

ZHIYU LI of Room 362, Building 10, Lujing Xinyuan, Dongcheng Disctrict, Beijing, China.
8th PLAINTIFF

XIAOYAN SHEN of Room 6-3-10A, Yard 9, Beiwa Road, Haidan District, Beijing, China.
9th PLAINTIFF

RUI WANG of Building No. 2, Yard No.5, North Street Wulutong, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
10th PLAINTIFF

HONG BI of Room 1810, Building 2, No. 220, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
11th PLAINTIFF

DAN MENG of No. 21, Building 21, Liangyu Garden, Liangzhu Cultural Village, Liangzhu Street, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China.

12th PLAINTIFF

ZHIBING ZHAO of No. 21, Building 21, Liangyu Garden, Liangzhu Cultural Village, Liangzhu Street, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China.

13th PLAINTIFF

LEI LI of Room 101, Unit 1, Building No. 13, Yard No. 5, Shuangqiao East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
14th PLAINTIFF

FANGYUN WANG of Shuiluopo Town, Yangxin County, Shandong Province, China.
15th PLAINTIFF

HONGTAO YU of Room 2107, Block 1, North Wanke, Building 1, Shuizhuizi Beili, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
16th PLAINTIFF

XIAOLI FAN of 1-1-801, Oriental Garden, Green City Taoyuan Town. Yuhang District, Hangzhou, China.
17th PLAINTIFF

HAIBO SUN of 1-1-1, Block 3, Bishuikangcheng, No 18 Qixing Road, Qixing District, Guilin, Guangxi, China.
18th PLAINTIFF

HUA TIAN of 1-1-1, Block 3, Bishuikangcheng, No 18 Qixing Road, Qixing District, Guilin, Guangxi, China
19th PLAINTIFF

DA SUN of Songbei District, Haebin, Heilongjiang Province.
20th PLAINTIFF

RAN JIANG of Room 702, Block 1, Building 9, Xingfu Jiayuan, Guangqumen, Dongcheng District, Beijing, China.
21st PLAINTIFF

:	BIDAN GU of Room 301, Unit 8, Fangcaodi Building No. 6, Fangcaodi West Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
22nd PLAINTIFF
:
XIAOYING GAI of 13-1, Unit 2, Building 6, Jiangjing New World, Heping District, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
23rd PLAINTIFF

JIANG ZHU of Room 101, Door 8, Building 146, Nongguangli Yiqu, Chaiyang District, Beijing, China.
24th PLAINTIFF

JIE KANG of Level 11, Block A, Baoye Building, Huaiyin District, Shandong Province, China.
25th PLAINTIFF

TIANPU WANG of Office, 21 Liang Ma Qiao Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
26th PLAINTIFF

QUIFANG LI of 1106, Building No. 2, Yard No. 3, West Jinxing Road, Daxing Disctrict, Beijing. China.
27th PLAINTIFF

HUAMING LI of Room 180 Qian City II, Shuyuan Road (S), Tianxin District, Changsha city, Hunan Province, China.
28th PLAINTIFF

MIAN YANG of 2-18 Zone Yin, Million Village, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100037, China.
29th PLAINTIFF

RUOMEI YU of Room 1002, Bleck E, Shanshui Plaza, Chaowai Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
30th PLAINTIFF

ZICHENG WANG of Sales office of Yuanda Meiyu, Guanshanhu District, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.
31st PLAINTIFF

WEIJIA GUO of 32-10-1028, Residence of Yicheng Xishan, Haidan District, Beijing, China.
32nd PLAINTIFF

JIE GAO of Room 2101, Block 3, Building 5, Section 7, Jinyu Jingheyuan, Dongba, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
33rd PLAINTIFF

XINTONG WU of 7-5-301, Guodian garden, Huixin West Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing.
34th PLAINTIFF

WEI JUN SUN of Room 101, No. 66, Fangchenliyang North District, 588 Fangchen Road, Zhenhai District, Ningbo, China. Living area 84# 104, Zhenhai Refining and Chemical Branch, Sinopec, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
35th PLAINTIFF

JIANGNING YU of Room 101, No. 66, Fangchenliyang North District, 588 Fangchen Road, Zhenhai District, Ningbo, China. Living area 84# 104, Zhenhai Refining and Chemical Branch, Sinopec, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
36th PLAINTIFF

XIAOJIAO MA of Room 3102, Tangning North First Street, Liwan District, Guangdong Province, China.
37th PLAINTIFF

JIELEI DU of Room 1905, Unit 17, Building 6, Ronganxiangyuan, No. 1155, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
38th PLAINTIFF

XIAOFANG CHENG Building New Media, People’s Daily, No. 2 West Jintai Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
39th PLAINTIFF

JINGMING YANG Building New Media, People’s Daily, No. 2 West Jintai Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China
40th PLAINTIFF

:	JINXI JIANG as mother and next friend of JUNREN JIANG of Room 301, Building 63, Huayan Beili, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
41st PLAINTIFF
:
JINXI JIANG of Room 301, Building 63, Huayan Beili, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
42nd PLAINTIFF

ZHEN LIU of Room 301, Building 63, Huayan Beili, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
43rd PLAINTIFF

YUZHEN ZHANG of Room 19C, Dingheng Center, Jia No. 45, North Fengtai Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, China.
44th PLAINTIFF

GANG SUN of Room 209, No. 2, Lane 2899, North Zhangyang Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, China.
45th PLAINTIFF

TINGTING SONG of Room 1301, Building 2, Lane 69, Shuangding Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, China.
46th PLAINTIFF

XUANYE DAI of No. 77, Lane 1180, Rushui Road, Jiading District, Shanghai, China.
47th PLAINTIFF

MENGQI PAN of Room 20-2-2403, Poly Chuntianli, Daxing District, Beijing, China.
48th PLAINTIFF

LIJIE WANG of 17A, Block D, Huating, Beijing, China
49th PLAINTIFF

YINGYING BI of Room 101, 8828 Lane No. 91, Chuanzhou Road, Chuangsha Town, Pudong New District, Shanghai, China.
50th PLAINTIFF

XUHUA LIU of No. 711, Unit 7, Building 14, Madiannan Village, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
51st PLAINTIFF

AIDAN ZHANG of No. 14 South Street, Chaoyang Gate, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China.
52nd PLAINTIFF

XU LINA of Room 902, Block 4, Building 88, Shiji Xingcheng, Tongzhou District, Beijing, China. As mother and “next friend” of KUAN LIU of Room 902, Block 4, Building 88, Shiji Xingcheng, Tongzhou District, Beijing, China.
53rd PLAINTIFF

XU LINA of Room 902, Block 4, Building 88, Shiji Xingcheng, Tongzhou District, Beijing, China. As mother and “next friend” of CHANG LIU of Room 902, Block 4, Building 88, Shiji Xingcheng, Tongzhou District, Beijing, China.
54th PLAINTIFF

SIQI ZHAI of 11F, North Building, Fenghui Times Building, Fenghuiyuan, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
55th PLAINTIFF

BEINI GUAN of A-301, No. 1 Street, North Tangning Liwan District, Gaungzhou, Guangdong Province.
56th PLAINTIFF

XIN ZHAO of B1407, Building 1, Guangwai Gaunghua Xuan Community, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
57th PLAINTIFF

YUQI WU of accounting firm Daxin, 15th Floor, Xueyuan Inti Plaza, No. 1, Zhichun Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
58th PLAINTIFF

HONGYAN JI of Room 412, South Building 7, No. 8 North Huayuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
59th PLAINTIFF

FREESOUL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT (FIJI) PTE LIMITED a limited liability company having its registered office at Suva in Fiji
1st DEFENDANT

FREESOUL INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT (FIJI) PTE LIMITED a limited liability company having its registered office at Suva in Fiji
2nd DEFENDANT

BEN MA of 7 Thomson Street, Suva
3rd DEFENDANT

DICK PENG of 7 Thomson Street, Suva
4th DEFENDANT

DICKSON INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED a limited liability 				company having its registered office at Suva in Fiji
5th DEFENDANT

Counsel:  		Mr. K. Jamndas for the Plaintiffs
Mr. A. Nathan for the Defendants

Date of Judgment:  27.11.2025

Judgment (security for cost)

INTRODUCTION
[1]	The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants apply for an order that the Plaintiffs provide security for costs pursuant to Order 23 rule 1(a) of the High Court Rules 1988.

[2]	The Plaintiffs oppose the application. The Defendants filed no affidavit in reply.

[3]	Order 23 rule 1 of High Court Rules 1988 states,

Security for costs of action, etc. (O.23, r.1)
1.–(1) Where, on the application of a defendant to an action or other proceeding in the High Court, it appears to the Court–
(a) that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction
(b) that the plaintiff (not being a plaintiff who is suing in a representative capacity) is a nominal plaintiff who is suing for the benefit of some other person and that there is reason to believe that he [or she]1102 will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if ordered to do so;
(c) subject to paragraph (2), that the plaintiff’s address is not stated in the writ or other originating process or is incorrectly stated therein[;or
(d) that the plaintiff has changed his address during the course of the proceedings with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation, then if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court thinks it just to do so, it may order the plaintiff to give such security for the defendant’s costs of the action or other proceeding as it thinks just.
(2) The court shall not require a plaintiff to give security by reason only of paragraph (1)(c) if he satisfies the Court that the failure to state his address or the mis-statement thereof was made innocently and without intention of deceiving.
(3) The references in the foregoing paragraphs to a plaintiff and a defendant shall be construed as references to the person (howsoever described on the record) who is in the position of plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, in the proceeding in question, including a proceeding on a counterclaim” (emphasis added) 
[4]	The discretion must be exercised having regard to “all the circumstances” which is analogous to interlocutory applications such as injunctions.

[5]	It is difficult to list all considerations. Relevant considerations include: prospects of success, the risk of stifling a legitimate claim, delay, quantum sought, and whether the application is oppressive. This required ‘holistic’ approach and factors needs to be properly weighted.

[6]	Broad discretion is granted to court so that in considering overall justice of application for security for cost can be refused.

Analysis
[7]	It is not disputed that the Plaintiffs are resident outside Fiji. This allows the Court to consider security but does not create a presumption in favour of it. It is the prerequisite for an application for security for cost.

[8]	The preliminary issue regarding affidavit of Plaintiffs in my mind is not a reason to deny justice in this application.

[9]	The Defendants filed no reply to the affidavit in opposition. This is relevant considering the statement of defence is bare denial without explanation and also delay in the filing of statement of defence. 

[10]	According to statements of claim and affidavits filed by Plaintiffs,

a)	the Plaintiffs allege significant financial loss arising from the Defendants’ conduct;
b)	the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants hold substantial funds previously received from them and that they claim equitable interests in property of the 1st and 2nd Defendants;
c)	This application is said to be intended to obstruct and delay the Plaintiffs’ claims;
d)	the quantum sought is excessive and unjustified;
e)	the delay in bringing the application is substantial.

[11]	In my mind the main consideration is the prospect of success. The pleadings disclose several causes of action including breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit and conspiracy.

[12]	No evidence challenges the bona fides of the claim. Even in the statement of defence are bare denials without explanation. 

[13]	At this interlocutory stage the Court does not undertake a detailed merits inquiry. the claim appears bona fide and is neither frivolous nor obviously hopeless. 

[14]	The uncontested affidavit describes substantial financial outlay by the Plaintiffs in connection with the alleged transactions. Defendants chose not to reply to these allegations in the affidavit in opposition.

[15]	Plaintiff state that requiring security in the amount sought would impede their ability to proceed.

[16]	An order in the amount sought or any security for cost would likely operate oppressively considering the conduct of the Defendants in this action as well as in this summons. 

[17]	This application was not sought initially by Defendants and even they did not file statement of defence.

[18]	Delay itself may not be a ground to refuse security for cost but statement of defence as well as the conduct of Defendant in this action shows bona fides of this application.

[19]	The Defendants seek security of $250,000 and this also shows clearly the intention of Defendant was not genuine and was attempting to abuse the process through security for cost. There were no bill of costs, calculation, or evidentiary basis to make such an excessive security only because there were numerous Plaintiffs. 

[20]	On the material before the Court, the figure sought cannot be justified.

CONCLUSION
[21]	Having regard to all the circumstances including the absence of reply evidence, the risk of stifling the claims, the  delay, and the lack of justification for the quantum sought ,  is not satisfied that it is just to order security for costs.
 
FINAL ORDERS;
a)	The Defendants’ application for security for costs is dismissed.

b)	Costs of the application are awarded to the Plaintiffs, assessed summarily at $2,000 to be paid by first second forth and fifty Defendants jointly and or severally within 21 days.

………………………….
Deepthi Amaratunga
Judge
At Suva this  27th  day of November, 2025.

Solicitors 
Parshotam Lawyers 
Janend Sharma Lawyers 
Fiji National University