Law Chi Ching v. Apple Daily Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 221/2015 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 February 2017.
1. The defendants appealed on the award of general damage of $700,000. They succeeded in reducing the amount to $450,000. This is a substantial reduction. They relied on two grounds. First, on the lack of evidence to support an award of $700,000 and, second, on causation. The hearing before us was taken up mainly on the issue of evidence which the defendants succeeded. In our view as the defendants are successful, the principle that costs to follow the event is applicable, save that the d
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 221/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2155 OF 2009) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Cheung, Kwan and Poon JJA in Court Date of Plaintiff’s Written Submissions: 27 January 2017 Date of Defendants’ Written Submissions: 27 January 2017 Date of Decision on Costs: 27 February 2017 ________________________ DECISION ON COSTS ________________________ Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court) : Costs of the appeal 1.The defendants appealed on the award of general damage of $700,000. They succeeded in reducing the amount to $450,000. This is a substantial reduction. They relied on two grounds. First, on the lack of evidence to support an award of $700,000 and, second, on causation. The hearing before us was taken up mainly on the issue of evidence which the defendants succeeded. In our view as the defendants are successful, the principle that costs to follow the event is applicable, save that the defendants are entitled only to 70% of the costs of the appeal from 28 November 2016 when the Supplementary Notice of Appeal was served on the defendants. The reason is that the Supplementary Notice of Appeal abandoned the appeal on liability which formed the substantial part of the grounds of appeal and confined the appeal to damages only. 2.The defendants are entitled to 30% of the costs of the appeal from 22 September 2015 (the date of the service of the original notice of appeal) to 27 November 2016. The plaintiff is entitled to 70% of the costs of the appeal from 22 September 2015 to 27 November 2016. 3.We reject the plaintiff’s contention that she should be awarded 30% of her costs of the appeal or, alternatively, there should be no order as to costs. Costs below 4.The defendants asked for costs below to be taxed on District Court scale. Chung J heard arguments on this specific point and rejected it. We see no reason why his decision should be disturbed.
Mr Bernard Yuen, instructed by Johnny Chu & Co., for the plaintiff Mr Raymond Ho, instructed by Hampton, Winter and Glynn, for the 1st to 4th defendants | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 221/2015