Liu Jun v. China Well Properties Ltd

DCCJ 2759/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2759 OF 2011

------------------------

------------------------

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.On 23 October 2015, I delivered judgment of the court whereby, inter alia, the third party’s claim against the defendant was dismissed.

2.By a summons taken out by the third party on 20 November 2015 (“the 1^st summons”), the third party sought leave to appeal against the said decision.

3.On 12 January 2016, the third party took out another summons (“the 2^nd summons”) seeking leave to withdraw the 1^st summons and that the costs of the 1^st summons be to the plaintiff and the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.

2^nd summons

4.In view of the changed intention of the third party, there is no need to deal with the 1^st summons. 

5.There is no objection from the defendant regarding the withdrawal of the 1^st summons.

6.Accordingly, I give leave to the third party to withdraw the 1^st summons.

Costs

7.On the question of costs of the 1^st summons, the parties have not been able to agree on the quantum of costs which necessitated a hearing.

8.This year sees the 7^th anniversary of the Civil Justice Reform. Practitioners should all be well-versed with the underlying objectives under Order 1A rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court and the District Court. More often than not, they are required to adopt a common sense approach and consider if the end justifies the means.

9.That being the case, I am surprised that this court is required to hold a hearing in order to resolve the costs issue arising out of the withdrawal of the 1^st summons. This is an affront to the spirit of the Civil Justice Reform.

10.To reflect the court’s disapproval, I think there should be no order as to costs in respect of the 2^nd summons and today’s hearing.

11.By summary assessment, I order that the third party do pay the defendant costs of the 1^st summons in the sum of HK$1,950.

Miss Daisy Chan, of Tony Kan & Co for the defendant

Miss R Yeung, of Cheung & Choy for the third party