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

Yip Wik Aric v Ko Chun Hay, Kelvin

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date23 April 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] HKCA 545
Year2021
Judgement NumberCACV607/2020
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV607/2020 YIP WIK ARIC v. KO CHUN HAY, KELVIN

CACV 607/2020

[2021] HKCA 545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 607 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCSD NO. 30 OF 2019)

_________________

BETWEEN
YIP WIK ARIC (葉域) Applicant

and
KO CHUN HAY, KELVIN (高浚晞) Respondent

_______________

Before: Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 23 April 2021

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

Hon Chu JA giving the judgment of the Court:

Introduction

1. This is the respondent’s application that the applicant provides security for his costs in this appeal in the sum of HK$185,670. The applicant does not oppose to providing security for costs of the appeal, but disagrees with the amount sought by the respondent. Both parties have lodged written submissions.

2. Having considered the papers, we are of the view that it is appropriate to deal with the application based on the written submissions only without an oral hearing, pursuant to Order 59 rule 14A(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A.

HCSD 30/2019

3. In this appeal, the applicant seeks to appeal against the order of Linda Chan J made on 30 October 2020 dismissing his application to set aside a statutory demand served on him by the respondent[1].

4. The statutory demand is in respect of a debt in the sum of HK$2,125,000, being the unpaid balance of a loan owed by the applicant. The applicant’s grounds for setting aside the statutory demand were: (1) the debt was disputed on substantial ground; (2) the respondent holds security in respect of the debt which equals or exceeds the amount of the debt; and (3) the loan was made under agreements that were illegal, being in contravention of the Money Lenders Ordinance, Cap. 163.

5. The Judge found against the applicant on all the grounds and dismissed the application. She further ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the application summarily assessed at HK$92,000.

6. As the applicant’s objection to the present application is solely on the quantum of the security to be ordered, it is not necessary to go into the details of the Judge’s reasons for her decision. It is sufficient to observe that no complex or difficult issues of fact or law is involved.

The application for security for costs

7. On 13 November 2020, the applicant filed the Notice of Appeal to appeal the Judge’s decision. The appeal has yet to be listed for hearing.

8. On 27 November 2020, the respondent’s solicitors wrote to the applicant’s former solicitors requesting for security for the costs of the appeal in the sum of HK$185,670, and enclosing a draft skeleton bill of costs.

9. Not having received a response from the applicant, the respondent issued the present summons on 9 December 2020 together which was supported by an affirmation made by his solicitor. The ground on which the present application is made is that the applicant is impecunious and the respondent will encounter undue delay and put to undue expense to enforce a costs order against him if his appeal was unsuccessful.

Quantum of the security to be ordered

10. As mentioned above, the sole issue in the present application is the amount of security to be ordered.

11. The skeleton bill is in the total sum of HK$185,670. It is only in respect of the costs of the appeal, and does not include the costs of the present application for security for costs. The respondent has separately put in a statement of costs for the latter in support of his argument that the costs of the present application should be paid by the applicant forthwith. We will deal with this below.

12. The applicant’s objections to the quantum of the skeleton bill of costs relate to: (1) the amount of time claimed by the handling solicitor for the preparation and perusal of documents and skeleton submissions; (2) the involvement of two solicitors at the hearing of the appeal; and (3) the amount of counsel fee. Mr Man, for the applicant, argued that the subject matter of the appeal was simple and did not entail the amount of time and costs stated in the bill of costs. It was also said that there was duplication in the work done or to be carried out. He suggested that HK$100,000 would be an appropriate amount to be ordered.

13. Ms Wong, for the respondent...

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