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 1 case