Ko Hon Yue v. Liu Ching Leung and Others

CACV 294/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 3494 OF 2003)

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

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

Before: Hon Tang VP in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 16 October 2009

Date of Decision: 16 October 2009

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

DECISION

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

1.As a result of a trial before Chu J which had lasted 19 days, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1^st defendant’s costs.  Such costs were subsequently agreed at $1,900,000 with a taxing fee of $14,000, in full and final settlement of the 1^st defendant’s cost.

2.It is accepted that no payment has been made by the plaintiff, and it appears from the evidence that in the event of the plaintiff’s failing in his appeal, he is unlikely to be able to pay the cost of the appeal. 

3.The plaintiff, who appeared in person today, has submitted that because his appeal enjoys a high chance of success and involves important points of public interest, no security for costs should be ordered.  I have to say that having read the judgment of Chu J, I am unable to agree that the appeal has a high chance of success.  I do not say that the plaintiff’s appeal cannot succeed, but it is not an appeal with a high chance of success.  As for public interest, it is not apparent that the judgment of Chu J involves any decision of public importance such that no security for costs should be awarded.  In any event, a suitable case for not ordering security for costs because of public interest must be very rare indeed and this is not one of those rare cases.

4.I go to the question of quantum.  The amount of security sought is $275,867.  The bulk of it is made up of counsel’s fees of $200,000.  Mr Ko, the plaintiff, made the point that the appeal is to last one day only and that the amount is excessive.  I do not agree that the fee of $200,000 is not reasonable.  However, in the context of security for costs, I am not going to award the full sum of $200,000, I would order security for costs in the total sum of $200,000 instead of the $275,867 which has been applied for.  I order security for costs against the plaintiff in the sum of $200,000.

5.I will give the plaintiff three weeks to pay into court the security for cost.  In the meantime, appeal be stayed.  In default of the plaintiff making such payment within the time limit, his appeal do stand dismissed without any further order of the court with costs to the defendants, costs of this application be in the cause of the appeal.

Mr Tsui Wai Hay of Messrs K B Chau & Co., for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants

The Plaintiff, in person, present