MAN EARN LTD v. SING YAU SANG

HCMP 2699/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2699 OF 2009

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NOS. 5957 OF 1992 AND
5019 OF 1998)

HCA 5957/1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 5957 OF 1992

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

 

Hon Rogers VP:

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal a decision of Chung J given on 9 September 2009 with Reasons handed down on 14 September 2009.  The matter before the judge was an appeal by the plaintiff against the master’s order dated 11 August 2009.  The plaintiff had applied to the master for the payment-out of part of a total sum of $1.5 million that the plaintiff had paid into court as security for costs.  The application for payment out was in order to satisfy the amount of taxed costs that had been ordered to be paid by the plaintiff on the application for security and the later application for an “unless order” in respect of the then unprovided security.  That application was dismissed by the master on 11 August 2009.  The judge dismissed the appeal to him with costs.  On 17 December he dismissed an application for leave to appeal.

2.  I can see absolutely no merit in any appeal in this matter.  It is quite clear that the order for costs when the application for security was made was separate from any amount for which security was required.  The application for an “unless order” was likewise not something contemplated in the security application.  I consider the judge was quite correct for the reasons he gave.

3.  In the circumstances, I would refuse this application for leave to appeal and make an order under Order 59 rule 2A(8) that since this application is totally without merit, no party may request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.  I would make an order nisi that the costs of this application be to the defendant.

Hon Tang VP:

4.  I agree.