Wu Nai Sang v. Fellowship Engineering Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 199/2016 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 January 2019.
1. On 12 December 2018, we allowed the applicant’s appeal and made an order that the 1 st and 4 th respondents (both in liquidation) are to pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed summarily, and that the applicant’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 199/2016 [2019] HKCA 128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 199 OF 2016 (ON APPEAL FROM DCEC NO 243 OF 2011) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ DECISION ON COSTS ________________________ Hon Kwan JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court): 1.On 12 December 2018, we allowed the applicant’s appeal and made an order that the 1st and 4th respondents (both in liquidation) are to pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal, to be assessed summarily, and that the applicant’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. 2.The applicant submitted a statement of costs for summary assessment dated 11 December 2018 in the total sum of $192,615. 3.The liquidators for the 4th respondent responded on 18 January 2019 stating that they have no objection to the applicant’s statement of costs. The liquidators for the 1st respondent responded on 22 January stating that they have “no objection for the costs of this appeal to be summarily assessed”, but made no response to the amount of costs claimed in the statement of costs. 4.This is a straightforward appeal. We consider the costs claimed by the applicant to be excessive, both in respect of the solicitors’ costs and counsel’s fees. We assess the reasonable costs to be recovered from the 1st and 4th respondents at $146,115.
Mr Dennis Law, instructed by K Y Woo & Co, for the Applicant (Appellant) The 1st Respondent was not represented The 4th Respondent was not represented |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 199/2016