Chun Wo Building Construction Ltd v. Metta Resources Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 29/2013 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 22 March 2018 before Hon Anthony Chan J.
Costs — Clarification application — Whether costs of counterclaim fall within successful party's costs order — Court held costs order as originally drafted was clear and reflected the parties’ relative successes — Metta partly succeeded on counterclaim though Chun Wo was overall winner with a lesser judgment sum — Court refused to amend para 3 of costs order excluding costs of counterclaim — Summons for clarification dismissed with costs. Chun Wo sought clarification of costs paragraphs 2 and 3 of its 2017 judgment to include costs of counterclaim; court confirmed intention to exclude counterclaim costs was clear and correct. The court reaffirmed power to clarify judgments but declined to do so. Result: summons dismissed with costs order against applicant.
Legal issues: Whether costs of the counterclaim are included in main costs order
Outcome: Summons dismissed with costs to Metta, to be taxed if not agreed
Cites 3 cases
|
HCCT 29/2013 [2018] HKCFI 620 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 29 OF 2013 ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 22 March 2018 Date of Decision: 22 March 2018 ____________________ D E C I S I O N ____________________ 1.This is Chun Wo[1]’s application for clarification of paras 2 and 3 of the Judgment filed on 23 February 2017 (Judgment) which provided as follows:
2.The costs order was made after a hearing on 15 February 2017: see Decision of that date (Decision). 3.The issue here is whether Chun Wo’s costs entitlement under para 2 of the Judgment should embrace its costs of the counterclaim because there was overlap between the action and counterclaim (Chun Wo relies on the decision of this court on a security for costs application: Chun Wo v Metta [2016] 2 HKLRD 1280, §21). 4.By its Summons filed on 18 October 2017 (Summons), Chun Wo seeks to have para 3 of the Judgment amended as follows:
5.I agree that the court has the power to clarify its judgment if it fails to express the intention of the court: see Man Ping Nam v Man Fong Hang (No 2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 140, §§10-11. 6.However, firstly, there is nothing unclear about paras 2 and 3 of the Judgment on their face. 7.Further, it must be remembered that Metta had partly succeeded in its counterclaim (see paras 8 and 10 of the Decision). It should also be said that whilst Chun Wo was the overall winner, the judgment sum was a fraction of its claim. 8.Paras 2 and 3 of the Judgment correctly reflected the intention of this court, and that is the end of this application. 9.Accordingly, the Summons is dismissed with costs to Metta, to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Jonathan Wong, instructed by J Chan, Yip, So & Partners, for the Plaintiff Mr Anthony HK Chan, instructed by Hogan Lovells, for the Defendant | ||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 29/2013