World Fuels (Singapore) Pte Ltd t/a Trans-tec Asia v. The Owners of the Ship or Vessel M.V. Libertry Container (Singapore Flag)
Read the full judgment text of HCAJ 135/2003 on BabelCite. This HCAJ judgment was delivered on 14 October 2004.
1. This application is for security for costs in relation to the whole action by the defendant against the plaintiffs. Much has been said by Mr Sussex on behalf of the defendant for security of costs and the total sum of close to a million dollars of security is required.
|
HCAJ135/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.135 OF 2003 --------------------- Admiralty action in rem against : BETWEEN
---------------------- Before : Hon Waung J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 14 October 2004 Date of Judgment : 14 October 2004 ------------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------------- 1.This application is for security for costs in relation to the whole action by the defendant against the plaintiffs. Much has been said by Mr Sussex on behalf of the defendant for security of costs and the total sum of close to a million dollars of security is required. 2.In my view no security should be ordered. I take into account all the circumstances in the case but in particular the following. 3.First, that the plaintiffs have an overwhelming case on the facts of this case. It seems to me that it is highly likely that long before setting a date for trial, the plaintiffs would have obtained from this Court a judgment in their favour in this action in rem. 4.Secondly, it seems to me that the fact that the defendant is a company in liquidation and therefore unable to pay any costs of the plaintiffs when successful is a very material consideration. Even though we have not yet reached the final stage, there is at the moment a high possibility that the plaintiffs may not be able fully to recover from the funds in court in relation to both its claim in this action as well as in relation to any costs successfully ordered in this action. 5.Thirdly, it seems to me that I need to take into consideration the fact that the defendant made no offer and in fact refused to make any offer of counter security of costs to the plaintiffs. 6.Fourthly, I take into account that the plaintiffs is a substantial company with known assets. 7.Fifthly, it seems to me that I must also take into account the fact that there is reciprocal enforcement arrangement between Singapore and Hong Kong and that it is relatively simple for the defendant to enforce against the plaintiffs any successful order of costs. 8.Finally, it goes without saying in connection with security for costs that in a previous gross sum assessment, I ordered in favour of the plaintiffs the sum of $147,000. 9.Having taken all these matters into consideration, it seems to me that in the circumstances of the case, it would be wrong to order any security of costs against the plaintiffs. 10.The application of the defendant is therefore dismissed with costs.
Mr Colin Wright, instructed by Messrs Johnson Stokes & Master, for the Plaintiffs Mr Charles Sussex, SC, instructed by Messrs Holman Fenwick & Willan, for the Defendant |
Further hearings and rulings under HCAJ 135/2003