KELSO ENTERPRISES LTD v. LIU YIU KEUNG STEPHEN AND ANOTHER

cacv 303/2006

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 303 of 2006

(on appeal from HCMP NO. 3302 of 2004)

______________________

BETWEEN

  KELSO ENTERPRISES LIMITED Applicant
  and  
  LIU YIU KEUNG STEPHEN 1st Respondent
  YEO BOON AN KENNETH 2nd Respondent

Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 March 2007

Date of Decision: 12 March 2007

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1. This is an application for security of costs in respect of the appeal. The appeal is in a winding-up matter and it relates to theJudge’s order refusing to defer the date of dissolution of the company. The grounds of appeal are relatively short.

2. On this application the Respondent to the appeal have first indicated that they consider their costs likely to be $800,000. Theyasked for security of $600,000. When it was made clear by the court in the course of argument that a figure of that amount wouldnot be likely to be ordered by this court, Mr Chan sensibly reduced the amount claimed, or what he said would be reasonable, to $400,000.

3. However, having listened to both sides, the view that I take is the amount of security which I should order is not the actual amountwhich the parties will choose to pay their counsel and their solicitors but the amount that the case could reasonably be conductedby reasonable and sensible lawyers on both sides.

4. This is going to be a short appeal, from the look of it. I do not consider it should be a long appeal, it certainly will not belong in this court if I have got anything to do with it. In my view, the amount put forward by the Appellants, namely about $275,000,which is an increase on their original suggestion of about $200,000, should cover a reasonable senior and junior, not of course themost fashionable, but counsel that can do a reasonable job, and the solicitor’s costs.

5. I propose, therefore, to order a sum of $275,000 costs in the usual form to be paid.

(Submission by counsel)

6. What I think would be a fair order in this case is that the costs of this application, that is today, be the Appellant’s costsin the appeal.

  (Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President

Mr Baker, of Messrs Clyde & Co, for the Applicant/Appellant

Mr Abraham Chan, instructed by Messrs Arculli, Fong & Ng, for the 1st and 2nd Respondents