Rudolf a. Oetker Kg v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "Liberty Container"

HCAJ000271/2003

HCAJ268/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.268 OF 2003

---------------------

Admiralty Action in rem against the proceeds of
sale of "Convenience Container" (Singapore Flag)

----------------------

AND

HCAJ270/2003

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.270 OF 2003

---------------------

Admiralty Action in rem against the proceeds of
sale of "Kingdom Container" (Singapore Flag)

----------------------

AND

HCAJ271/2003

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.271 OF 2003

---------------------

Admiralty Action in rem against the proceeds of
sale of "Liberty Container" (Singapore Flag)

----------------------

AND

HCAJ272/2003

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.272 OF 2003

---------------------

Admiralty Action in rem against the proceeds of
sale of "Mandarin Container" (Singapore Flag)

----------------------

(HEARD TOGETHER)

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 28 April 2004

Date of Judgment: 28 April 2004

-------------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------

1.I have before me an application under four different actions for security for costs. They basically relate to security for costs to cover the Order 12, rule 8 dispute that is looming ahead. Leading counsel will be appearing in the Order 12, rule 8 application, and difficult and unusual point of law is involved. I accept, and I do not think it is in dispute, that substantial costs would be incurred. The estimated time of the hearing for the Order 12, rule 8 application is three days, and probably a little bit less than three days would be required.

2.The two positions adopted by the parties are that the open offer of the plaintiff for $500,000 security for costs has been rejected. The defendants are seeking a much higher figure put in the latest affidavit with the revised schedule of costs at a total sum of $1,200,000.

3.I have carefully looked at the figures. In my view, the $1,200,000 figure is much too high, but on the other hand, I think the $500,000 figure is somewhat low. Doing the best way I can and having regard to my considerable experience in these matter on costs, both by way of security for costs as well as by way of gross sum assessment, in my view, the proper figure for security for costs in this case should be $700,000. This is the sum of security which should be provided by the plaintiff to the defendants within 14 days in a form satisfactory to the defendants.

4.So far as costs is concerned, it seems to me that the best order I should make is costs of the security for costs application be costs in the Order 12, rule 8 application.

Representation:

Mr White of Messrs Stephenson Harwood & Lo, for the Plaintiff

Mr Charles Sussex, SC, instructed by Messrs Holman Fenwick & Willan, for the Defendants