Leung Wing Yi Asther v. Kwok Yu Wah
Read the full judgment text of FACV 11/2015 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 18 February 2016 before Ribeiro PJ, Tang PJ, Chan NPJ, Stock NPJ, Lord Collins of Mapesbury NPJ.
Costs – application for certificate for three counsel – no point of great and general importance – no unusual complexity – application refused. Leung Wing Yi Asther (Petitioner/Appellant) and Leung Lun Ping (Intervener/Appellant) appealed from a District Court determination of a preliminary issue in matrimonial ancillary relief. The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeals and ordered costs to the respondent. The respondent applied for a certificate that his appearance was fit for three counsel. The Court held that there was no justification, as the case involved no issue of great importance or unusual complexity.
Legal issues: Certification for three counsel
Outcome: Application for certificate for three counsel refused.
Cites 1 case
|
FACV Nos. 10 & 11 of 2015 FACV No. 10 of 2015 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2015 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO.151 OF 2013) _______________ BETWEEN
_______________ FACV No. 11 of 2015 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2015 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO.152 OF 2013) _______________ BETWEEN
_______________ Before : Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ, Mr Justice Chan NPJ, Mr Justice Stock NPJ and Lord Collins of Mapesbury NPJ Date of Judgment: 18 February 2016 _______________ JUDGMENT ON COSTS _______________ Mr Justice Stock NPJ: 1.This is the judgment of the Court on an application in relation to costs. 2.On 22 December 2015, this Court dismissed appeals by the petitioner and her father, the intervener, from a determination by the District Court of a preliminary issue in an application by the respondent husband for matrimonial ancillary relief and made an order nisi that the costs of the appeals and of the applications before this Court to adduce fresh evidence be to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed. 3.By a written application dated 23 December 2015, the respondent asks this Court to certify that the appearance by the respondent before this Court on the substantive appeal ( and, we shall assume, upon the fresh evidence applications ) was fit for three counsel. This application is resisted by the petitioner and the intervener. 4.We are satisfied that there is no justification for a certificate for three counsel. There was no point of great and general importance involved and, in any event, there was nothing in the issues raised of unusual complexity. Accordingly, we decline to issue the requested certificate.
Written representations by Simon C W Yung & Co, Solicitors for the Petitioner (Appellant in FACV 10/2015) Written representations by T C Foo & Co, Solicitors for the Respondent (Respondent in FACV 10/2015 and FACV 11/2015) Written representations by Li, Wong & Lam & W I Cheung, Solicitors for the Intervener (Appellant in FACV 11/2015) |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FACV 11/2015