Read the full judgment text of HCCT000040A/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 March 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Procedure — Security for costs — Construction contract dispute — Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to proceed diligently; defendant counterclaims — Plaintiff financially unable to provide security — Defendant seeks order for security for costs — Court considers plaintiff's financial position, rule of practice regarding claims and counterclaims, and potential prejudice — Court refuses to order security to avoid injustice to plaintiff and because extra costs to defendant would be minimal — Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs. The plaintiff claimed termination of contract was rightful and sought damages, while the defendant counterclaimed for payment and losses. The court balanced the risk of non-payment with fairness and discretion, ultimately refusing the security for costs application.
Legal issues: Whether to grant order for security for costs
Outcome: The application for security for costs by the defendant was refused; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs.