Fantastic State Ltd v. Tien's Organic Farm and Others

Read the full judgment text of CACV 77/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 November 2019.

1. Pursuant to our judgment on costs of 16 September 2019, solicitors for the Plaintiff lodged four statements of costs:

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 77/2019[2019] HKCA 1235
Court
Court of Appeal
Date07 Nov 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 77/2019

[2019] HKCA 1235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 77 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 99/2018)

__________________________

BETWEEN

FANTASTIC STATE LIMITED Plaintiff
and
TIEN’S ORGANIC FARM
(鳳園美子親子有機農莊)
1st Defendant
WONG CHI PAN (黃志斌) 2nd Defendant
TONG HIU WAN (唐曉雲) 3rd Defendant

__________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 7 November 2019

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court):

1.Pursuant to our judgment on costs of 16 September 2019, solicitors for the Plaintiff lodged four statements of costs:

(a) A statement of costs for the appeal in the total sum of $1,063,709 (of which $930,000 is counsel fees for two counsel);

(b) A statement of costs for the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal in the total sum of $136,023.80 (of which $99,000 is counsel fees for two counsel);

(c) A statement of costs for the application for leave to appeal in the Court of First Instance in the total sum of $543,011 (of which $429,000 is counsel fees for two counsel);

(d) A statement of costs for the application for injunction in the Court of First Instance in the total sum of $1,622,766 (of which $986,000 is counsel fees for two counsel).

2.Notwithstanding our direction at [11] in our costs judgment, the defendants did not lodge any objection to these statement of costs.

3.Having considered the costs statements, we make the following orders under Order 62 Rule 9A (1)(b) (which preserves the right of either party to seek taxation[1] but such taxation will be subject to the conditions in Rule 9A (3) to (5)):

(a) For the costs of the appeal, the costs of the Plaintiff are summarily assessed under Rule 9A (1)(b) at $750,000;

(b) For the costs of the leave application before the Court of Appeal, the costs of the Plaintiff are summarily assessed under Rule 9A (1)(b) at $100,000;

(c) For the costs of the leave application in the Court of First Instance, the costs of the Plaintiff are summarily assessed under Rule 9A (1)(b) at $400,000;

(d) For the costs of the application for injunction in the Court of First Instance, the costs of the Plaintiff are summarily assessed under Rule 9A (1)(b) at $1,100,000.

(M H Lam) (Thomas Au)
Vice President Justice of Appeal

Kao, Lee & Yip, for the plaintiff

The defendants acting in person



[1]    See Order 62 Rule 9A(2)