Euro Fixed Income Ltd v HSBC Bank Cayman Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Smellie, C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 24 March 2009
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 24 March 2009

Grand Court

(Smellie, C.J.)

EURO FIXED INCOME LIMITED and GLOBAL FIXED INCOME LIMITED

and

HSBC BANK CAYMAN LIMITED

Attorneys: Samson & McGrath for the plaintiffs; Maples & Calder for the defendant.

Civil Procedure-costs-security for costs

The plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal against an order for security for costs and a refusal to stay that order. The plaintiffs submitted that the court had been wrong to require them to show that its shareholders were impecunious when trying to establish that an order for security for costs would stop them pursuing their claim and that it had been an improper exercise of its discretion to have placed little emphasis on the fact that it had been the defendant that had caused the plaintiffs” impecuniosity.

Held: The application for leave to appeal, both against the order for security of costs and the refusal to stay that order, would be refused. The court was satisfied that, when making an order for security for costs, it would be obliged to consider not only the impecuniosity of the plaintiffs but also the attitude of their shareholders to funding the costs of litigation if the defendant were to succeed in the action (Bodden (J.M.) & Son Intl. Ltd. v. Dettling, 1990–91 CILR 220, followed; Easy Watch Products Manufactory Co. Ltd. v. Epson Precision (Hong Kong) Ltd., [2004] HKEC 431, followed; Keary Devs. Ltd. v. Tarmac Constr. Ltd., [1995] 3 All E.R. 534, followed). Further, in order to succeed in an appeal upon the court”s misuse of its discretion, it had to...