Professional Documents
Culture Documents
14 December 2005
District Court
DC
DCCJ 2744/2004
Counsel In The Case: Mr. Neal Clough instructed by Messrs Henry HC Wong & Co.
for the Plaintiff.
Details of Judgment:
1. There are 2 summonses before the court, both taken out by the Defendant.
2. The Plaintiff is agreeable to the summons dated 2nd December 2005 and I make an order in terms
of that summons by consent.
3. In the remaining application by the summons dated 26th August 2005 as amended, the Defendant
is applying for security for costs and that all further proceedings be stayed pending the provision of
such security. The application is made on the ground that P is resident outside the jurisdiction.
4. It is common ground that I should adopt the approach set out in the judgment of Peter Gibson LJ in
Keary Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd [1995] 3 All ER 534 at 539-540 as follows:
"1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light
of all the relevant circumstances.
2. The possibility or probability that the plaintiff company will be deterred from pursuing its claim by an
order for security is not without more a sufficient reason for not ordering security.
3. The court must carry out a balancing exercise. On the one hand it must weigh the injustice to the
plaintiff if prevented from pursuing a proper claim by an order for security. Against that, it must weigh
the injustice to the defendant if no security is ordered and the defendant finds himself unable to
recover costs from the plaintiff in due course.
4. In considering all the circumstances, the court will have regard to the plaintiff company's prospects
of success. But it should not go into the merits in detail unless it can clearly be demonstrated that
Page 2