Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Dynasty Line Ltd v Sukamto Sia And Another

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date23 February 2009
Judgement NumberCACV184/2008
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CACV000180/2008 DYNASTY LINE LTD v. SUKAMTO SIA AND ANOTHER

CACV 180/2008
CACV 184/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2057 OF 2007)

----------------------

BETWEEN

DYNASTY LINE LIMITED
(Provisional Liquidators appointed)		 Plaintiff
and
SUKAMTO SIA
(also known as SUKAMTO SUKARMAN)		 1st Defendant
LEE HOWE YONG 2nd Defendant

----------------------

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2057 OF 2007)

----------------------

BETWEEN

DYNASTY LINE LIMITED
(Provisional Liquidators Appointed)		 Plaintiff
and
SUKAMTO SIA
(also known as SUKAMTO SUKARMAN)		 1st Defendant
LEE HOWE YONG 2nd Defendant

----------------------

Before: Hon Rogers VP in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing: 23 February 2009

Date of Decision: 23 February 2009

-----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1. This is an application for security for costs for an appeal which is coming up in two months’ time. The appeal was launched last July.

2. I have to say that, in the course of the argument this morning, I have changed my mind as to the order that I should make. Looking at the whole thing back to front - my initial reaction on reading the papers was that security ought to be given because the defendants are outside the jurisdiction, but the amount asked for was way over the top and far too high, in respect of both defendants, it comes to well over a million dollars, which is quite unnecessary.

3. However, it seems to me, having heard the argument, the first defendant has been made bankrupt in the United States. That causes a complication. Essentially, what is at issue is whether there should be a Mareva injunction. The second defendant seems to be pretty substantial and has a house, which is empty, of undoubted high value and I have absolutely no doubt that it could be rented out for a very substantial sum. Albeit it is owned jointly by the second defendant and his wife, nevertheless, as Miss Tong has pointed out, a Receiver could be appointed, the property could be rented out, or at any rate, and I have no doubt that in a very short space of time, no more than a few months, any costs that have been run up could be paid out of the incoming rent, even including the appointment of a Receiver and the costs that involved.

4. Looking at the matter realistically, however, I would have thought that probably the threat of that happening would be enough to extract the costs out of the second...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT