Dexter Lam & Co (A Firm) v. Ding Yu and Another

HCMP 1480/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO1480 OF 2015

____________

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.For today’s purpose, the plaintiff’s application under the originating summons is against D1 (ie “DY”) only. The claim against D2 has already been discontinued.

2.On 23 March 2016, DY has been served with the originating summons.  He did not appear, nor did he file any affidavit in opposition. He has also been served with other documents, such as skeleton submissions and various letters of the court in relation to today’s hearing.  However, there was no response from him.

3.The evidence disclosed a retainer agreement signed by DY to engage the plaintiff.  Counsel have been engaged to conduct the trial for him.  Costs of solicitors were incurred.  The bill was rendered and there was a sum outstanding on it for some time.  DY has not put forth any defence either to dispute liability or quantum.

4.Despite this costs judgment in a related case in HCMP 1569/2015, he has not raised any objections whether in the form of an appeal or to the terms of the court order entered in that case. 

5.In my view, it was proper for the plaintiff to seek judgment today against Ding Yu. 

6.The 2nd defendant also appears through counsel today.  I questioned whether D2 (“HKF”) has locus to appear today to contest the application for judgment against Ding Yu.  In fact, Mr Cheung informed the court that he does not contest judgment being entered against Ding Yu with an order for taxation. 

7.HKF’s concern is that if the appeal in the related case is allowed, the plaintiff in the present case may renew its claim against HKF.  Judgment may then be held against HKF for it to be jointly and severally liable with Ding Yu for costs.  Mr Cheung is concerned that in that scenario it may not be open to HKF to challenge the quantum of costs in view of the judgment in the present case against Ding Yu.

8.Accordingly, HKF asked for judgment to be entered against Ding Yu with an order for taxation as well.  As I said, I can see no logic and no locus in HKF’s opposition to entry of full judgment without taxation today.  In the scenario of the plaintiff’s renewal of his claim against HKF, I fail to see any reason why HKF is unable to challenge the quantum if sufficient grounds are shown. 

9.Accordingly, I am not satisfied that HKF’s appearance is necessary today, or that any grounds of objection to the entry of judgment against DY is valid.  I therefore give judgment to the plaintiff for the billed amount in the sum of 13,576,115 without the need for taxation.

(Submissions on costs)

10.I asses the costs summarily in the amount of $5,500 to be paid by HKF to the plaintiff.  As for the costs of Ding Yu, I will give the ruling in writing.

Mr Andrew Ngo, of Wong & Lawyers, for the plaintiff

The 1^st defendant was not represented and did not appear

Mr Lawrence Cheung, instructed by LCP, for the 2^nd defendant