Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Appeal

QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The judge exercised discretion and refused to order security for costs because the application was late, ordering security would likely derail or significantly delay the scheduled appeal given the prospect of further appeals and a postponed bankruptcy hearing, and the appellant had credible grounds resisting security; therefore the correct course was to make no order on security and no order as to costs to enable the appeal to proceed.

Court disposition

No order on the application for security for costs; no order as to costs; appeal allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • No order on application for security for costs
  • No order as to costs
  • Appeal permitted to proceed (hearing to go ahead)

02

Material facts

Parties

QUESTNET LIMITED

Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Jose-Antonio Maurellet (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert)

KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK

1st Defendant

WILFRED ROYCE LANE

2nd Defendant Counsel: In person

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory); Appeal Pending (hearing Scheduled)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff sought security for costs on the appeal, contending the application had grounds and that the appeal might never take place if the 2nd Defendant were made bankrupt and therefore security was necessary to protect against irrecoverable costs.
Respondent
The 2nd Defendant (appellant) resisted, arguing the matter concerns a prohibition order, he has been kept in Hong Kong for about two years and unable to work, and that ordering security would be oppressive and would derail or significantly delay the appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Principles of civil procedure (this decision)

    Court must balance prejudice to the respondent against prejudice and delay to the appellant; lateness of an application is a relevant factor.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The judge exercised discretion and refused to order security for costs because the application was late, ordering security would likely derail or significantly delay the scheduled appeal given the prospect of further appeals and a postponed bankruptcy hearing, and the appellant had credible grounds resisting security; therefore the correct course was to make no order on security and no order as to costs to enable the appeal to proceed.

Obiter and limits

  • The application was acknowledged not to be without grounds.
  • The lateness resulted from expectation of an earlier bankruptcy hearing which has been postponed.
  • The court noted that ordering security could necessitate further interim appeals (to a two-man court) and thus defer the appeal date.

Court disposition

No order on the application for security for costs; no order as to costs; appeal allowed to proceed.

  • No order on application for security for costs
  • No order as to costs
  • Appeal permitted to proceed (hearing to go ahead)

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal · 21 November 2008

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.

Source document

Court of Appeal

Judgment· 21 November 2008

QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER

bjbj cacv 71/2008 in the high court of the hong kong special administrative region court of appeal civil appeal no. 71 of 2008 (on appeal from HCA NO. 1475 of 2006)

BETWEEN

QUESTNET LIMITED Plaintiff

KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK 1st Defendant

WILFRED ROYCE LANE 2nd Defendant Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chamber Date of Hearing: 21 November 2008 Date of Decision: 21 November 2008

D E C I S I O N This comes before me as an application for security for costs on an appeal which is to be heard on 10 December. Although the appeal was launched some time ago, in March of this year, this application comes late. The reason it came late is that the Plaintiff, who seeks the costs, indicated that it thought that the appeal might in fact never take place if the 2nd Defendant, against whom the security for costs are sought and who is the Appellant, were made bankrupt. That bankruptcy hearing is now not to take place until March of next year. It is in those circumstances that this application is made late. I have to say, on this application, that the application for security for costs is not without grounds but I would also say that the 2nd Defendant does also have grounds for resisting on the basis that the matter concerns a prohibition order and the 2nd Defendant has been kept in Hong Kong for some time now, some two years, and has been unable to work during that time. Following an indication from the Court that the whole appeal may be derailed to the extent that it might have to be put off for a very long time, or for a considerable time, until it can be re-fixed were I to order security for costs, because it would be open to the 2nd Defendant then to appeal to the two-man court of the Court of Appeal which would inevitably not take place before 10 December,

Mr Maurellet, who appears for the Plaintiff, indicated, at my suggestion, that I should make no order on this application. Having read the papers, and spent quite a deal of time reading the papers, I consider the right order to make today is that there should be no order on this application and no order as to costs and this will enable the appeal to go ahead. (Anthony Rogers) Vice-President Mr Jose-Antonio Maurellet, instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the Plaintiff/Respondent The 2nd Defendant/Appellant, in person

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[ 2QX[ H; < jFen & 6" ABC-Final (fair)1.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Title Source Erica Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.