JOHN ROBERT LEES v. HUI YAT SING AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- JOHN ROBERT LEES v. HUI YAT SING AND ANOTHER
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 16 October 2007
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (court of Appeal, Hong Kong) / Application for Security for Costs (in Chambers)
- Case number
- CACV277/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 16 October 2007
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (court of Appeal, Hong Kong) / Application for Security for Costs (in Chambers)
- Case number
- CACV277/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the court found that there was some merit in the appeal and that ordering security for costs would likely stifle the appeal, the court refused to order security for costs, particularly in relation to litigants in person.
Court disposition
Application for security for costs dismissed; no security ordered.
Orders
- Security for costs not ordered
- Costs should be to the 8th and 9th respondents
02
Material facts
Parties
John Robert Lees
Receiver Counsel: Andrew SheppardHui Yat Sing
Respondent Counsel: Arthur WongWong Suet Mui
Respondent Counsel: Arthur Wong03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal, Hong Kong) / Application for Security for Costs (in Chambers)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court should order security for costs
- 02
Whether ordering security for costs against litigants in person is appropriate where the appeal has some merit
- 03
Whether ordering security would stifle the appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought an order for security for costs to protect against potential adverse costs liability.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued that ordering security for costs would stifle the appeal and that there was some merit in the appeal, particularly resisting security against litigants in person.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Hon Rogers VP, Court of Appeal, Hong Kong (16 October 2007)
Court will not order security for costs if doing so would stifle a litigant's appeal
- 02
Hon Rogers VP, Court of Appeal, Hong Kong (16 October 2007)
Where a litigant in person can show some merit in the appeal, the court will generally refrain from ordering security for costs
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the court found that there was some merit in the appeal and that ordering security for costs would likely stifle the appeal, the court refused to order security for costs, particularly in relation to litigants in person.
Obiter and limits
- The adopted approach is not to order security for costs against litigants in person if the court can see some merit in the appeal.
Court disposition
Application for security for costs dismissed; no security ordered.
- Security for costs not ordered
- Costs should be to the 8th and 9th respondents
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal · 16 October 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal
Judgment· 16 October 2007
bjbj cacv 277/2007 in the high court of the hong kong special administrative region court of appeal civil appeal no. 277 of 2007 (on appeal from HCMP NO. 5714 of 2001)
BETWEEN JOHN ROBERT LEES,
THE SOLE RECEIVER APPOINTED
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE
HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE GALL OF 17 NOVEMBER 2003 Receiver
HUI YAT SING Respondent
WONG SUET MUI Respondent Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers Date of Hearing: 16 October 2007 Date of Decision: 16 October 2007
D E C I S I O N Hon Rogers VP: This is an application for security for costs. The simple point in this case, as far as I can see, is that if I were to order security for costs it would stifle the appeal. The approach which I adopt is that I do not make such an order in relation to litigants in person if I can see that there is some merit in the appeal. At the moment, as far as I can see, there is some reason that this appeal should go ahead. I say no more than that. I consider that there is some merit in this appeal, from what I can see on the papers, and therefore I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to order security for costs. (Submission re costs) I think the costs should be to the 8th and 9th respondents. (Anthony Rogers) Vice-President Mr Andrew Sheppard, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the Receiver/Respondent Mr Arthur Wong, instructed by Messrs Angus Tse, Yuen & To, for the 8th and 9th Respondents/Appellants
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K L M 1udk 1udk a$ H; < jFen & 6" ABC-Final (fair)1.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Source Erica Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.