Read the full judgment text of CACV 235/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 June 2014 before Hon Barma JA.
Security for costs — Appeal from arbitration award — Plaintiff a Singapore company with no Hong Kong assets — Defendants sought security for costs of appeal under Order 59, rule 10(5) — Grounds: enforcement difficulty in Singapore; risk of plaintiff’s inability to pay costs due to non-payment of Final Award — Plaintiff argued effective reciprocal enforcement regime and bona fide dispute as to deposits owed — Court considered reciprocal enforcement under Cap 319 and lack of evidence of undue delay or expense — Failure to pay Final Award rebutted by plaintiff’s arguable claim regarding refunds — No special circumstances justifying security for costs found — Amount sought by defendants excessive if security ordered — Application dismissed with costs against defendants. Keywords: security for costs, arbitration, appeal, reciprocal enforcement, Final Award, Order 59 rule 10(5), impecuniosity, breach of procedural fairness, costs of appeal.
Legal issues: Whether special circumstances exist to order security for costs of appeal · Appropriate quantum of security for costs if ordered
Outcome: Defendants’ application for security for costs of appeal dismissed; defendants to pay plaintiff’s costs of this application.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases