Shenzhen Zhaotian Investments Co Ltd v. Henderson Land Development Co Ltd and Another

Read the full judgment text of CACV 79/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 January 2013.

1. On 22 January 2013, I ordered the appellants to pay into Court $1.2 million as security for costs of their appeal.

Cites 2 cases

Case No.CACV 79/2012
Court
Court of Appeal
Date22 Jan 2013
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 79/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 825 OF 2008)

________________________

BETWEEN

SHENZHEN ZHAOTIAN INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED
(深圳市兆田投資有限公司)
Plaintiff/
Appellant
and
HENDERSON LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
(恒基兆業地產有限公司)
1st Defendant/
1st Respondent
and
BEIJING HENDERSON PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED
(北京恒兆置業有限公司)
2nd Defendant/
2nd Respondent

________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 899 OF 2009)

________________________

BETWEEN

BEIJING HENDERSON PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED
(北京恒兆置業有限公司)
Plaintiff/
Respondent
and
STRAIT PEACEFUL REUNIFICATION FOUNDATION LIMITED
(海峽兩岸和平統一基金會)
1stDefendant/
1st Appellant
and
TIAN LI (HONG KONG) TRADING LIMITED
(天利(香港)貿易有限公司)
2nd Defendant/
2nd Appellant

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung JA in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 22 January 2013
Date of Decision : 22 January 2013
Date of Reasons for Decision : 30 January 2013

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

1.On 22 January 2013, I ordered the appellants to pay into Court $1.2 million as security for costs of their appeal.

2.The only issue I had to decide was on amount of the security.  The appellants conceded that they have to pay security.  The respondents asked for $1,620,000 which is to be apportioned as to ⅔ for the appeal from HCA 825/2008 and ⅓ for the appeal from HCA 899/2009.  Of this sum counsel’s fee (two counsel) for the two day appeal is at $1,305,000.

3.The appellants without elaboration submitted that the amount of security should only be $600,000.  Upon inquiry by me, Mr. Lee, counsel for the appellants, stated that counsel fees for the two counsel who will appear on appeal for the appellants will also exceed $1 million.  Hence his suggestion that the security should only be at $600,000 was totally unrealistic.  Bearing in mind the amount of the claim and the complexity of the case, I considered $1.2 million to be appropriate and I so ordered.

  (PETER CHEUNG)
  Justice of Appeal

Mr Dick Lee, instructed by Fan Wong & Tso, for the Appellants

Ms Eva Sit, instructed by Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo, for the Respondents

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 79/2012