SZE KA SHUEN v. LEE MEI LIN AND OTHERS

cacv 57 & 58/2008

CACV 57/2008

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 57 of 2008

(on appeal from HCA NO. 2016 of 2005)

________________________

BETWEEN

SZE KA SHUEN
(by his next friend SZE YING NGO)
Plaintiff
and
LEE MEI LIN 1st Defendant
SZE MING KWOK 2nd Defendant
SZE MING SHUEN 3rd Defendant

CACV 58/2008

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 58 of 2008

(on appeal from HCMP NO. 2201 of 2005)

________________________

BETWEEN

SZE KA SHUEN
(by his next friend SZE YING NGO)
Petitioner
and
SILKEASE INVESTMENTS LIMITED 1st Respondent
LEE MEI LIN 2nd Respondent
SZE MING KWOK 3rd Respondent
SZE MING SHUEN 4th Respondent

(Heard together pursuant to the directions of
Master de Souza dated 2 April 2008)

Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 28 July 2008

Date of Decision: 28 July 2008

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1. I think this is a suitable case for security for costs on the basis that it would appear that the Appellant is impecunious, or,at the very least, the Respondents are going to have great difficulty in recovering their costs.

2. In my normal, not particularly generous, approach to security for costs, I look upon it on the basis of the amount the Respondentscould employ suitable counsel to handle this case.

3. In my view, 300,000 all in is enough. The sum that they have asked for of over $1,100,000, in my view, is far too much for anysecurity for costs in this case.

4. I propose to order security in the standard form, and that is that the Plaintiff do on or before 8 September 2008 give securityto answer costs in case any shall be awarded to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants by making lodgement in courtof the sum of $300,000 by cash or banker’s draft or by the provision of a bank guarantee of the like amount, which guarantee shallhave been approved by the Registrar, and until such lodgement be made and notice thereof given to the Registrar and to the solicitorsfor the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, such notice to be given on the same day as lodgement is made, all proceedings in the said appealare to be stayed.

5. In default of the Plaintiff making such lodgement as aforesaid within the time specified above or within such further time as thecourt may for special reasons allow, the said appeal do, upon the solicitors for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants certifying such defaultto the Registrar, stand dismissed out of this court without further order.

6. In the event that the appeal is dismissed in the circumstances provided for above, the Plaintiff do pay to the 2nd and 3rd Defendantstheir costs occasioned by the said appeal, such costs to be taxed, and the costs of this application be costs in the appeal.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President

Ms Sylvia Siu, of Messrs Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, for the Plaintiff in CACV57/2008 and the Petitioner in CACV58/2008/Appellant

Mr William Wong, instructed by Messrs Leung, Tam & Wong, for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in CACV57/2008 and the 3rd and 4th Respondentsin CACV58/2008/Respondents