- 16 - A B C D E A declined to do so, and instead made an ex parte order joining the insurer as a defendant under O.15, r.6(2)(b). 45. B C Hong Kong Housing Authority was considered by DHCJ Poon (as he then was) in Re Aurasound Speakers Ltd [2005] 4 HKLRD 382. D E The issue there was whether the Court had jurisdiction to make an order F G H I J K L M N O P for costs against a director of a company who opposed the winding up of that company. In the context of s.54A(2) of the Ordinance (which governed costs against non-parties), the Court took the view that where a party intended to seek costs against a non-party, he had to either satisfy the Court that the non-party was in fact a “party” within the meaning of s.2 of the Ordinance or apply to join the non-party to the proceedings. It was an obiter dicta because the application was decided on the basis that the director was not a party to the proceedings. S.52A(2) had since been amended to enable the Court to order costs against non-parties. 46. The above authorities were cited to this Court by the parties. With great respect, I am unable to derive much assistance from them. It appears from §§9 and 10 of the Decision in Hong Kong Housing Authority that the claim that the insurer was a party under s.2 of the Ordinance was rejected on the facts of that case. In respect of Aurasound, the dicta F G H I J K L M N O P concerned the Court’s jurisdiction under s.52A(2), which was a provision Q R in the Ordinance. Here, the Court is concerned with whether Ms Chow is a party to these proceedings bearing in mind the relevant circumstances of Q R this case and the provisions under O.15, rr.4 and 6. S S T T U U V V