Li Mingren v. Questex Development Inc. and Another

CACV 141/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVI l appeal no. 141 of 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2081 OF 2013)

________________

_____________________________

J U D G M E N T  O N  C O S T S
_____________________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.On 18 November 2015 we heard the 1^st Defendant’s appeal from an order of summary judgment given by Deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt on 13 June 2014.

2.After the learned judge’s judgment, on 8 May 2015 the 1^st Defendant obtained permission from a single judge of this court to produce fresh evidence on appeal. 

3.After hearing the parties on 18 November 2015, we delivered judgment immediately allowing the appeal.  We set aside the summary judgment and gave various consequential directions.

4.Thereupon the 1^st Defendant

(1) applied for costs here and below, and

(2) on the assumption that the court makes an order for costs in its favour, asked for certificate for two counsel in this court, on the ground that it was reasonable for it to instruct two counsel because the plaintiff had, in his application for security for costs on 7 November 2014, indicated that he would be instructing two counsel on this appeal.

5.Regarding (1) liability for costs, we heard both parties and reserved our judgment. 

6.Regarding (2) whether there should be certificate for two counsel, we gave the plaintiff 14 days to submit written submissions restricted to the issue of number of counsel.

7.On 1 December 2015, the plaintiff filed an affirmation.  In a section dealing with costs, he first applied for costs of the appeal and secondly, objected to certificate for two counsel.  However as mentioned above, we had already heard the plaintiff’s argument on liability for costs.  It was not open to him to supplement his arguments on this issue further.  As for the issue of number of counsel, the plaintiff did not address the 1^st defendant’s argument based on his (the plaintiff’s) own indication that he would be instructing two counsel on this appeal.

8.Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we take the view that an appropriate order for costs would be as follows:

(1) The costs below be costs in the cause; and

(2) The costs of the appeal (including the costs of the application to adduce fresh evidence, which were ordered to be costs in the cause of the appeal) be to the 1^st Defendant with certificate for two counsel.

Mr Anson Wong SC leading Mr Felix Ng, instructed by Ching & Solicitors, for the 1^st defendant

Mr LI Mingren, the plaintiff, acting in person