Read the full judgment text of HCCT 26/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 March 2020 before Deputy High Court Judge Hall-Jones.
Costs — Arbitration — Enforcement order — Setting aside application — Leave to appeal application — Costs following the event — Indemnity costs order. The respondent challenged the enforcement of an arbitral award by applying to set aside an enforcement order and seeking leave to appeal the award. Both applications failed. The court considered the partial deletion of a paragraph in the enforcement order and respondent’s settlement proposals but found these insufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event. Citing A v R and Wing Hong Construction v Tin Wo Engineering Company, the court held that indemnity costs were appropriate to prevent the successful applicant from subsidising unmeritorious challenges to the award. The respondent’s challenges were deemed abortive and unjustified, thus costs were ordered on an indemnity basis. The respondent’s application to vary costs was dismissed, confirming the original costs order against it.
Legal issues: Costs order following enforcement order proceedings · Appropriateness of indemnity costs
Outcome: The respondent’s applications to set aside the Enforcement Order and for leave to appeal the Award were dismissed; the respondent ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases