Cheung Hing v. Wong Chor Cheung and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 100/2014 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 January 2015 before Kwan JA.
Civil procedure – security for costs – application to extend time – whether to exercise discretion to extend time for compliance with order to provide security for costs of appeal – 2nd defendant ordered to provide security of $416,570 within 28 days – application made by letter rather than summons – no explanation of attempts to comply – belated offer by co-parties to refund part of deposit – whether 'special reasons' exist – Court of Appeal – civil appeal from HCA No. 925 of 2010 – application refused – no order as to costs.
Legal issues: Whether to extend time for Best Century to provide security for costs
Outcome: Application by Best Century to extend time to provide security for costs is refused.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 100/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2014 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 925 OF 2010) ________________________
________________________
_________________ D E C I S I O N _________________ 1.On 4 December 2014, the Court of Appeal (Kwan JA and Poon J) made an order for the 2nd defendant (“Best Century”), the appellant in CACV 100/2014, to provide security for costs of appeal of $416,570 within 28 days. The last day for complying with the order falls on 2 January 2015. The order also provided that the court may extend time to comply with the order for “special reasons”. 2.On 23 December 2014, the 1st and 3rd defendants (“Wong” and “WF Forest” respectively), the appellants in CACV 101/2014, issued a summons to extend time to give security to 25 February 2015 with an affirmation of Wong in support. I handed down a decision on 2 January 2015 extending time to Wong and WF Forest to provide security as sought but imposed certain conditions. 3.No summons was issued by Best Century to extend time. All that it did was to send a letter dated 31 December 2014 by its solicitors to the court, which was not received until 2 January 2014. In that letter, Best Century asked the court to extend time to 25 February on the same terms and conditions proposed by the plaintiff’s solicitors by letter dated 30 December 2014 and enclosed an undated letter from Wong stating that he, as the manager of WF Forest, is willing to repay Best Century $416,570 out of the deposit of $750,000 received by WF Forest from Best Century in June 2010, to assist the cash flow of Best Century. 4.I decline to exercise my discretion to extend time. No mention was made by Best Century’s solicitors as to what attempts were made to comply with the order to provide security for costs since the order was made on 4 December. That Wong and WF Forest have decided belatedly to refund in part the deposit paid by Best Century is not a special reason to warrant an extension of time, given the history of the litigation between the parties. 5.The application of Best Century to extend time is refused. I make no order as to costs as it is not apparent that the plaintiff has incurred any in respect of this application.
Cheung Wong & Associates, for the Plaintiff (Respondent) Raymond Cheung & Chan, for the 2nd Defendant (Appellant) |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 100/2014