YEE FAT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WINLINE KNITTING FACTORY LTD

DCCJ 447/2007

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 447 OF 2007

________________________ 

________________________

RULING

________________________ 

1.  On the Defendant’s application for security for costs, I will give security for costs of the appeal but I consider that the sum sought is somewhat on the high side and I will reduce it.

2.  There are matters which cause me some concern.  I appreciate of course that Mr Wong is making this estimate on the District Court scale instead of, as he would be entitled to, on the High Court scale, that I do appreciate, but nevertheless, security for costs is not intended to be an absolute indemnity for everything that a party may incur.

3.  I consider that on the work already done - reporting to client, obtaining client’s instructions, discussing with counsel the merits - would seem to be slightly on the high side. 

4.  I also agree with Mr Kwan that on the work to be done after leave is granted, including considering respondent’s notice and liaising with counsel, communicating with client, liaising with the plaintiff’s solicitors relating to appeal hearing and general preparation, would appear to be on the high side.

5.  I do not propose to do a taxation but taking a broad brush approach, if I reduce the total hours which are estimated in Mr Wong’s bill by some 12 hours out of 46 hours, that reduces the sum claimed by $31,200, to give a figure of $228,700, and if we put that in round figures, rounding it down instead of up, I order security for $228,000 on the terms set out in paragraph 1 of the amended summons.

Costs

6.  Mr Wong asked for gross sum assessment.

(Discussion re gross sum assessment)

7.  Again, on a broad brush approach, I will allow $5,000.