QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- QUESTNET LTD v. KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK AND ANOTHER
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 21 November 2008
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory); Appeal Pending (hearing Scheduled)
- Case number
- CACV71/2008
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 21 November 2008
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory); Appeal Pending (hearing Scheduled)
- Case number
- CACV71/2008
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 DefendantWILFRED ROYCE LANE
2nd Defendant Counsel: In person03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs (interlocutory); Appeal Pending (hearing Scheduled)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to order security for costs on appeal
- 02
Whether lateness of application precludes security order
- 03
Impact of pending bankruptcy proceedings on security for costs
- 04
Balancing prejudice to appellant against protection for respondent
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Court of Appeal
Judgment· 21 November 2008
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
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.