Ip Pui Lam Arthur and Another v. Alan Chung Wah Tang and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 214/2016 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 April 2017 before Cheung JA, Kwan JA, Poon JA.
Civil procedure – costs – contempt of court – variation of costs order – whether defendants should pay 80% or 20% of plaintiffs' costs of appeal and below on an indemnity basis – plaintiffs as joint and several trustees in bankruptcy alleged five breaches of March 2015 order – judge below found four breaches – Court of Appeal found one breach – whether costs follow the event where contempt found but committal order set aside – whether plaintiffs' partial lack of success on appeal warrants reduction – Court of Appeal revises costs order for appeal to 70% but confirms 80% for costs below – certificate for two counsel granted – application by defendants to vary to 20% refused.
Legal issues: Variation of costs order in contempt of court appeal
Outcome: Defendants' application to vary the costs order to 20% refused; costs order for the appeal revised to 70% in favour of the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis; 80% order for costs below confirmed; certificate for two counsel granted.
Cited by 15 cases
|
CACV 214/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2016 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 450 OF 2016) BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ DECISION ON COSTS ________________________ Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court): 1.This Court made an order nisi that the defendants are to pay the plaintiffs 80% of the costs of the appeal and below to be taxed on an indemnity basis. The defendants seek to vary the order so that they will only need to pay 20% of the costs of the appeal and below. 2.The defendants’ argument is that in the Court below, the plaintiffs’ case was that the defendants had committed five breaches of the March 2015 order and To J found the defendants had committed four breaches of the order. On appeal, this Court found that the defendants had only committed one breach. The defendants contended that the five allegations of breach constituted five separate charges and hence constituting five events. Applying the principle that costs following the event, they should not be ordered to pay 80% of the plaintiffs’ costs. Even if the various breaches are considered merely as issues, they should still not be ordered to pay 80% of the plaintiffs’ costs. 3.We disagree. The issue is whether the defendants were in contempt of court. The Judge found they were and on appeal by the defendants we uphold this view although not on the entire basis as decided by the Judge. The only reason why we gave the plaintiffs 80% of their costs and not the whole is because we found the committal order is no longer appropriate. 4.The 80% costs order of the costs below for the plaintiffs is the appropriate order having considered all the circumstances of the case. The only matter that needs to be changed is that in the appeal, the plaintiffs’ application to adduce new evidence was not successful and their argument in the amended respondent’s notice was not required to be decided. To reflect this, the costs order for the appeal should be revised so that the defendants will bear 70% of the costs of the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis. It was our intention to grant certificate for two counsel and we will so order.
Mr David Chen, instructed by Li, Wong, Lam & W.I. Cheung, for the plaintiffs Mr Patrick Siu, instructed by ONC Lawyers, for the defendants |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 214/2016