Chun Sang Plastics Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Police and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2278/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 28 March 2018.

1. I have considered the defendants’ objections to my proposed costs order.

Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 2278/2008[2018] HKCFI 661
Court
High Court CFI
Date28 Mar 2018
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2278/2008

[2018] HKCFI 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2278 OF 2008

______________

BETWEEN    
  CHUN SANG PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 1st Defendant
  SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd Defendant

______________

Before: Hon Seagroatt, Deputy High Court Judge in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions: 27 March 2018

Date of Addendum: 28 March 2018

________________________

A D D E N D U M

________________________

1.I have considered the defendants’ objections to my proposed costs order.

2.As far as the amendments to the Re‑Amended Statement of Claim were concerned, these were cosmetic at best, occasioned no prejudice to the defendants, save in regard to the new allegation of recklessness (which I disallowed), and took up very little time.

3.The additional documentation from the plaintiff was inconsequential and could have been dealt with as the trial proceeded. However I had hoped that the defendants would demonstrate some judgment and gave them extra time with a view to achieving some settlement with the plaintiff.  The agreed documentation and agreed facts made the plaintiff’s case virtually unanswerable.

4.However the opening for the plaintiff was not well-directed and I allowed the plaintiff’s counsel to reconstruct his opening.

5.I have concluded that I should disallow the plaintiff the costs of 1 ½ days of the trial and I make an order that there should be no order for costs in respect of that 1 ½ day period.

6.In saying that, the fault lies with the plaintiff’s lawyers not the plaintiff itself (or its directors). Accordingly the plaintiff’s lawyers must not seek to recover their costs for that wasted period from their client.

7.As to the remainder of the costs my order that the defendants pay them on an indemnity basis stands, and the order is now absolute.

  (Conrad Seagroatt)
  Deputy High Court Judge

Written submissions by Mr Kelvin Leung, instructed by Hau, Lau, Li & Yeung, for the plaintiff

Written submissions by Mr Jonathan Kwan, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the 1st and 2nd defendants