IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2008
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 9949 OF 2000)
Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 9 February 2009
Date of Decision: 9 February 2009
D E C I S I O N
1. This is an application for security for costs brought by the plaintiff against the 3rd defendant. The grounds upon which the applicationis made is that the defendant is resident in the Mainland which is outside the jurisdiction, which is correct, and no real challengeto that has been raised.
2. In October, the plaintiff wrote asking for security in the sum of $150,000.00 which was quite a reasonable amount. The correspondencepetered out, each side saying it was the other side’s fault that it petered out. Be that as it may, this summons was taken outin December. For reasons which would appear quite justified, the first date in December was not acceptable because it was reallya little bit short and if the 3rd defendant was going to challenge the application, then there was not really enough time to preparethe case. Apparently, the next date that was offered was today which seems to be a little bit too close to the hearing of the appealbut, in that case, it is really the fault on this side of the court that the late date was offered. Nevertheless, the 3rd defendanthas been under notice that security is being sought.
3. Given the situation which has arisen now with the appeal coming on in less than a month, it does seem to me sensible that if securityis going to be ordered, it has to be provided a week before the hearing of the appeal and so 25 February, which has been suggestedby the plaintiff, would appear to be the appropriate date. Given that and given the really short notice which the 3rd defendantis now under, despite the fact that he has been aware that security is being sought, it seems to me that it would be appropriateto limit the security being provided to the $150,000.00 which the plaintiff asked for in the first place which, as I said, is a veryreasonable amount.
4. So the order that I will make is that:
Mr Bernard Man, instructed by Messrs Tsang, Chan & Wong, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr Roland Lam, instructed by Messrs Wongs, for the 3rd Defendant/Appellant