Read the full judgment text of CACV 5/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 26 May 2011 before Hon Fok JA.
Procedure — Security for costs — Appeal — Impecuniosity — Limitation defence — Contractual payment terms — The appellant, an architect and structural engineer, appealed against dismissal on limitation grounds of his claim for professional fees under a consulting agreement. The respondent applied for security for costs before the appeal court citing the appellant’s impecuniosity and litigation history. The court acknowledged impecuniosity alone does not mandate security but considered the strength of the appeal and inability of the appellant to raise funds elsewhere. The appellant's contention that the appeal had strong merits on limitation was rejected based on factual findings that the cause of action accrued by 1998. The court ordered security for costs of HK$475,000 and costs of the security application to be paid by the appellant. There was no clear evidence that the appellant could not raise security from other sources, nor were the appeal merits sufficiently strong to displace the order.
Legal issues: Security for costs order · Merits of appeal relating to limitation
Outcome: Security for costs order granted in favour of the respondent.
Cites 2 cases