Tang Tim Chue v. Tang Ka Hung Robert and Another

Read the full judgment text of CACV 147/2012 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 October 2018.

1. On 16 August 2018 this court gave Judgment dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Judgment of DHCJ Au-Yeung (now Au-Yeung J) in HCMP2506/2009. We made an order nisi that the Appellant pay the costs of the 1 st Respondent executor, which order was made absolute as no application for its variation was made within the period specified in the rules of court. We also directed that the 1 st Respondent be at liberty to file with the court a summary bill of costs to which the Appellant could r

Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 147/2012[2018] HKCA 690
Court
Court of Appeal
Date16 Oct 2018
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 147/2012

[2018] HKCA 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 147 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 2506/2009)

________________________

  IN THE MATTER of the estate of TANG SUM ON alias TANG SAM ON (鄧心安), deceased
  and
  IN THE MATTER of an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance, Cap 481

________________________

BETWEEN
  TANG TIM CHUE(鄧添柱) Applicant
  and
  TANG KA HUNG ROBERT(鄧家雄) 1st Respondent
  TANG MEI SZE(鄧美施) 2nd Respondent

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Kwan JJA in Court

Date of 1st Respondent’s Summary Bill of Costs: 5 September 2018

Date of Appellant’s Response: 13 September 2018

Date of Judgment on Costs: 16 October 2018

_____________________________________

J U D G M E N T   O N   C O S T S

_____________________________________


Hon Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 August 2018 this court gave Judgment dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the Judgment of DHCJ Au-Yeung (now Au-Yeung J) in HCMP2506/2009. We made an order nisi that the Appellant pay the costs of the 1st Respondent executor, which order was made absolute as no application for its variation was made within the period specified in the rules of court. We also directed that the 1st Respondent be at liberty to file with the court a summary bill of costs to which the Appellant could respond.

2.We have considered the 1st Respondent’s summary bill of costs filed on 5 September 2018 and the Appellant’s response filed on 13 September 2018.  Upon a gross sum assessment, we take the view that the 1st Respondent’s claim of $15,046 is modest and reasonable, and we order the Appellant to pay that sum by way of costs. 

(M H Lam) (Maria Yuen) (Susan Kwan)
Vice President
Justice of Appeal
Justice of Appeal

Applicant acting in person.

1st Respondent acting in person.