Read the full judgment text of HCCT60/2004 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 April 2009 before Hon Burrell J.
Procedure — Security for costs — Construction contract disputes — Plaintiff in liquidation — Plaintiff claims over $16 million owed; defendant claims overpayment — Defendant applies for security for costs late in proceedings — Plaintiff impecunious and unable to provide security — Court considers whether order would stifle bona fide claim, whether impecuniosity caused by defendant, delay by defendant, and unfair advantage to defendant — Court accepts plaintiff has arguable case and credible evidence of impecuniosity caused by cessation of defendant’s payments — Defendant’s delay in application prejudiced plaintiff as security requested for costs already incurred — No order made for security to avoid stifling claim and to encourage settlement — Defendant to pay costs of application — Application for security for costs refused.
Legal issues: Whether an order for security would stifle the plaintiff’s bona fide claim · Whether the plaintiff’s impecuniosity was caused by the defendant · Whether delay by the defendant in making the security application prejudiced the plaintiff · Whether security for costs would give the defendant an unfair advantage by allowing counterclaim pursuit
Outcome: The application for security for costs is refused with costs to the plaintiff.
Cited by 15 cases