KO HON YUE v. LIU CHING LEUNG AND OTHERS

CACV 294/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 3494 OF 2003)

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

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

_______________

DECISION

_______________

1.  The trial had lasted 19 days and Chu J’s judgment is 98 pages long.  The plaintiff was represented at trial but is now acting in person on appeal.

2.  On 16 October 2009, I ordered security for costs in the sum of $200,000 against the sum of $275,867 requested by the defendants.  At that time, the estimate of time for the appeal was 1 day.

3.  Since then, we have received the appeal bundles with about 2,000 pages of documents.  Also in the plaintiff’s skeleton submission for appeal, he said that he would be relying on the written submissions used by the parties below, and those written submissions exceeded 300 pages.  So although the appeal was initially fixed for 1 day, we thought that 2 extra days should be reserved as well.  In fact, originally, the defendants’ estimate was that the appeal would take more than 1 day.

4.  The amount of $200,000 was fixed on the basis that the appeal would take 1 day. 

5.  Now that a further 2 days have been reserved for the hearing of the appeal, the defendants apply for additional security in the sum of $140,000 to cover the potential 2 extra days of hearing.  This morning, I asked Mr Ho, the plaintiff, how long he thought he might be in his oral submission.  He said he thought half an hour would be quite sufficient.  So proceeding on the basis that the plaintiff would not take more than an hour in his oral submission, it appears that there is still a possibility that the appeal would finish in 1 day.  Although, I have to say, having read the judgment closely and the skeleton submission that have been submitted so far, there are one or two points which may require special attention at the hearing of the appeal.  So on the basis of what Mr Ho has informed me and in the circumstances, I would not order any additional security.  But because it was reasonable for the defendants to have sought the extra security, I propose to order that the cost of this application be in the cause of the appeal unless Mr Ho wishes to contend otherwise. 

6.  Mr Ho does not object to the proposed costs order.  So the application is dismissed.  Costs of this application be in the cause of the appeal.