in the high court of the
hong kong special administrative region
court of appeal
civil appeal no. 277 of 2007
(on appeal from HCMP NO. 5714 of 2001)
Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 16 October 2007
Date of Decision: 16 October 2007
D E C I S I O N
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for security for costs. The simple point in this case, as far as I can see, is that if I were to order securityfor costs it would stifle the appeal. The approach which I adopt is that I do not make such an order in relation to litigants inperson if I can see that there is some merit in the appeal.
2. At the moment, as far as I can see, there is some reason that this appeal should go ahead. I say no more than that. I considerthat there is some merit in this appeal, from what I can see on the papers, and therefore I do not consider that this is an appropriatecase to order security for costs.
(Submission re costs)
3. I think the costs should be to the 8th and 9th respondents.
Mr Andrew Sheppard, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the Receiver/Respondent
Mr Arthur Wong, instructed by Messrs Angus Tse, Yuen & To, for the 8th and 9th Respondents/Appellants