SUPREMACY TRADING CO LTD v. ASIAN PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD

HCSA 56 & 57/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 56 OF 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM NO 16911 OF 2014)

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N
_____________

1.  This is an application by the respondent to an appeal for security for costs on appeal.

2.  The appellant is a limited company, with only $10,000 issued capital, according to the company search.  There are no known valuable assets of the appellant in Hong Kong.  The evidence shows that the appellant may not be able to meet any costs order if an appeal is dismissed.

3.  The only ground on which the application is opposed is delay. 

4.  The appeal date has been fixed as far back as 22 February 2015.  The appeal is due to be heard on 13 March, ie, about 25 days from today.  However, to be fair to the respondent, they made their first request for security by letter dated 20 January.  The skeleton bill was not provided until 28 January. 

5.  After discussions failed, the present summons was taken out on 3 February.  It was probably due to the court’s diary that the hearing is now set down for today. 

6.  In the overall movement of events, the delay was not such as to justify the court dismissing the application altogether. 

7.  In principle, I am of the view that security ought to be given.  However, the amount of $200,000 costs for both appeals are excessive, in my view.  The amount involved are, in total, $98,000.  The issues involved in both appeals are the same and very confined. 

8.  Exercising my discretion, I order the applicants to provide security in the sum of $20,000 for each case by 2 March, failing which the appeal shall be dismissed.

9.  In relation to the costs of this application, costs in the cause of the appeal.