Read the full judgment text of CACV 7/2016 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 May 2016 before Yuen JA.
Civil procedure – security for costs of appeal – O.59 r.10(5) RHC – special circumstances – impecuniosity – third-party funding – whether merits of appeal should be considered on security application – assessment of quantum – alleged conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and malicious falsehood – Small House Policy – indigenous villagers of New Territories – co-operation/development agreements – solicitors' duty – forgery of sale and purchase agreements – preliminary issues – whether plaintiffs have any interest in the properties – whether wasted costs caused by solicitors' use of disputed SPAs – held that special circumstances existed because the Tings' legal costs had been paid by a bankrupt third party (WT) and they could not be traced at their stated addresses, and any costs entitlements from the strike-out proceedings were offset by costs owed to the Solicitors after dismissal of both actions – held that the merits of the appeal did not warrant refusing security, because the judgment below assumed disputed facts in the Tings' favour and turned on the principle that conspiracy was not actionable per se and required proof of loss, damage, and causation, and the Tings' right to apply for a small house licence was personal rather than proprietary – held that HK$2.1m was unrealistic for a one-day appeal where both counsel were instructed below, and HK$400,000 was the appropriate sum – application granted in part with security fixed at HK$400,000.
Legal issues: Whether special circumstances exist under O.59 r.10(5) RHC to order security for costs of appeal · Whether the merits of the appeal warrant refusal of security for costs · Appropriate quantum of security for costs
Outcome: Application for security for costs of the appeal granted in part; the sum sought (HK$2.1m) was reduced to HK$400,000.
Cites 3 cases