International Social Service (Hong Kong Branch) v. Vision First Ltd

HCA 683/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 683 OF 2014

____________

____________

_______________________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

_______________________________________

1.By a decision handed down on 16 February 2017, the defendant’s jury trial application was refused (“the Feb 2017 decision”). Directions were given for the parties to address the court as regards the costs thereof.  This is the decision on costs after perusing the related written submissions. Unless otherwise stated, the same abbreviations used in the Feb 2017 decision will be used below.

2.It cannot be disputed that, in relation to the jury trial application, the defendant was the unsuccessful party.  It seeks the costs to be made in the cause of the action.  The main ground in support is that, earlier, the plaintiff also agreed to the jury trial application.

3.The plaintiff’s explanation for their earlier agreement to the jury trial application is that they were informed by the defendant there would be no prolonged examination of documents at trial (despite about 1,200 pages having been discovered (of which some 770 pages were accounting documents)).

4.A neutral stance was adopted by the plaintiff by the time of the PTR.  The plaintiff now explains that it was not aware of the defendant’s non-compliance with s 15(1), Cap 3 until the PTR (non-compliance with s 15(1), Cap 3 being the main reason for the refusal of the jury trial application).

5.I accept the plaintiff’s above explanations to the effect that no serious attempt was made to resist the jury trial application earlier only because it wanted to act reasonably (which would save costs and time).

6.The non-compliance with s 15(1), Cap 3 occurred after 30 May 2016 (this action having been set down for trial on 23 May 2016).

7.In view of the matters set out above, the appropriate costs orders are:

(a) the costs of the jury trial application on and before 30 May 2016 be in the cause of this action;

(b) the costs of the jury trial application after 30 May 2016 be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in any event.

Mr Vincent Chen, instructed by Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong, for the plaintiff

Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, for the defendant