Cheng Chi Lun v. Ng Lai Ming, Juliana

cacv 58/2007 AND CACV 59/2007

CACV 58/2007

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 58 of 2007

(on appeal from HCA NO. 1611 of 2006)

______________________

BETWEEN

CACV 59/2007

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 59 of 2007

(on appeal from HCSD NO. 32 of 2006)

______________________

BETWEEN

Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 25 June 2007

Date of Decision: 25 June 2007

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1.The order that I am going to make is that:

“The defendant - and I name her - Ng Lai-ming, Juliana, do, on or before 20 July 2007, give security to answer costs in case any shall be awarded, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff - and I name him - Cheng Chi-lun by making lodgement in court of the sum of $100,000 by cash or bankers draft or by the provision of a bank guarantee of the like amount which guarantee shall have been approved by the Registrar and, until such lodgement has been made, notice therefore given to the Registrar and to the solicitors for the plaintiff, such notice to be given on the same day as the lodgement is made, all proceedings in the said appeal to be stayed.

In default of the defendant making such lodgement as aforesaid within the time specified above or within such further time as the court for special reasons allow, the said appeal do, upon the solicitors for the plaintiff certifying such default to the Registrar, stand dismissed out of this court without further order.

In the event that the appeal is dismissed in the circumstances provided for above the defendant do pay to the plaintiff his costs occasioned by the said appeal, such costs to be taxed.

Costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.”

2.I do not lose sight of the fact that this is an order for security for costs against the defendant in person.  I am not entirely sure whether it is being said that an order for security for costs would prevent the defendant from continuing with the appeal.  There was some suggestion by counsel for the defendant in saying that the defendant might go bankrupt but, on the other hand, it is said that the defendant has got money and assets.  Nevertheless, this order is sought on the basis of the difficulties likely to be encountered in recovering costs.

3.There is a difficulty in the time because this appeal is due to come on on 25 July and the defendant has arranged many months ago to leave Hong Kong today and to return on 14 July.  So doing the best I can with the dates, I have arranged it so that the payment has to be made after the defendant gets back and only five days before the appeal is scheduled but, nevertheless, that is I think the appropriate order to make.

Mr Abraham Chan, instructed by Messrs C L Chow & Macksion Chan, for the Plaintiff in HCA 1611/2006 and the Respondent in HCSD 32/2006/Respondent

Mr George Chu, instructed by Messrs Michael Pang & Co., for the Defendant in HCA 1611/2006 and the Applicant in HCSD 32/2006/Appellant