MARBLE HOLDING LTD v. YATIN DEVELOPMENT LTD
- Citation
- MARBLE HOLDING LTD v. YATIN DEVELOPMENT LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 26 March 2007
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (on Appeal)
- Case number
- CACV67/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 26 March 2007
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (on Appeal)
- Case number
- CACV67/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court balanced the competing estimates of likely hearing length and corresponding counsel and solicitor fees, adopting a mid-point assessment and ordered security for costs in the sum of HK$250,000 as appropriate.
Court disposition
Security for costs ordered in the sum of HK$250,000; costs of the application to be costs on the appeal.
Orders
- Defendant/Appellant to provide security for costs in the sum of HK$250,000
- Costs of the security for costs application to be costs on the appeal
- Order to be in the standard form provided to the parties
02
Material facts
Parties
Marble Holding Limited
Plaintiff/respondent Counsel: Ms Susan Liang (Susan Liang & Co.)Yatin Development Limited
Defendant/appellant Counsel: Mr C.K. Wong (Charles Yeung, Clement Lam Liu & Yip)Amounts and remedies
- Security for Costs Ordered: HKD 250,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (on Appeal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether security for costs should be ordered
- 02
What is the appropriate amount of security for costs
- 03
Who should bear the costs of the security application
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Plaintiff/Respondent submitted that security for costs should be fixed at HK$322,500 based on a two-day estimate of the appeal and corresponding counsel and solicitor fees.
- Respondent
- The Defendant/Appellant accepted giving security but contended the sum should be HK$200,000 based on a one-day estimate of the appeal and lower estimated fees.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rogers VP, decision dated 26 March 2007 (Court of Appeal, HKSAR)
Court must take an overall view of the case and assess likely duration and expenses when fixing security for costs.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court balanced the competing estimates of likely hearing length and corresponding counsel and solicitor fees, adopting a mid-point assessment and ordered security for costs in the sum of HK$250,000 as appropriate.
Obiter and limits
- The court remarked that the appeal would likely occupy one day but catered for the possibility of a two-day hearing when fixing the amount.
- The order was to be in the standard form provided to the parties.
Court disposition
Security for costs ordered in the sum of HK$250,000; costs of the application to be costs on the appeal.
- Defendant/Appellant to provide security for costs in the sum of HK$250,000
- Costs of the security for costs application to be costs on the appeal
- Order to be in the standard form provided to the parties
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal · 26 March 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· 26 March 2007
bjbj cacv 67/2007 in the high court of the hong kong special administrative region court of appeal civil appeal no. 67 of 2007 (on appeal from hca 1127/2004)
BETWEEN
MARBLE HOLDING LIMITED Plaintiff
YATIN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Defendant Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers Date of Hearing: 26 March 2007 Date of Decision: 26 March 2007
D E C I S I O N This is an application for security for costs. The Defendant does not object to giving security but it is the amount that is involved. On these applications the court really has to take an overall view of the matter, judging the sort of case it is and the sort of likely expenses that are going to be incurred. On this occasion the Defendant is saying that the costs should be $200,000 whereas the Plaintiff is saying that the security for costs should be $322,500. The Plaintiff estimates that on the basis of a two-day appeal and the Defendant on the basis of a one-day appeal. I am pretty sure that if the matter comes in front of this court, it will only take one day. If it comes in front of another court, it might well take two days, I do not know. I have to cater for the fact that this case might be set down for two days in which case, looking at counsel s fee and the solicitor s fee, I think that the right amount in this case, taking all matters into consideration and balancing it all, I consider that the appropriate amount would be about $250,000, which is what I am going to order as security. So the order will be in the standard form, which was handed to the parties. The costs of the application be costs on the appeal. (Anthony Rogers) Vice-President Ms Susan Liang, of Messrs Susan Liang & Co., for the Plaintiff/Respondent Mr C.K. Wong, of Messrs Charles Yeung, Clement Lam Liu & Yip, for the Defendant/Appellant
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk 2QX[ 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.