HILDER CO LTD v. CHAN CHEUNG KWAI AND OTHERS

cacv 152/2008

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 152 of 2008

(on appeal from HCA NO. 1326 of 2006)

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This is an application for security for costs.  The matter is quite simple, from what I can see.  The Defendants say that they have a good answer to the Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the Plaintiff never pleaded an implied licence.  All I can say at the moment is that as far as I can see, that is putting the cart before the horse.  In other words, it is the wrong person that is supposed to be pleading an implied licence. 

2.  But be that as it may, unfortunately this morning I cannot see that the Defendants have a good defence, or, more correctly, a good appeal in this case, simply for this reason: an order for vacant possession was made some five years ago, and I cannot see why, when that remains in place, unless they can make out some positive case some other way, the Defendants should not have to vacate the land. 

3.  So having said that, which is probably more than I should have said on an application for security for costs, I then turn to the quantum.  Mr Li this morning has reduced the amount which the Plaintiff seeks on its application to $200,000.  In my view that is a very reasonable amount and I therefore propose to order provision of security on or before 24 November 2008.