Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCCJ 4410/2017

[2020] HKDC 117

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4410 OF 2017

-------------------------

BETWEEN
	MAN SUN TRADING LIMITED	Plaintiff
and
	LAU WING KEUNG STEPHEN	Defendant

-------------------------

Before: Her Honour Judge Phoebe Man in Chambers

Date of Defendant’s Submissions: 3 December 2019

Date of Plaintiff’s Submissions: 31 December 2019

Date of Defendant’s reply: 6 January 2020

Date of hearing: 17 January 2020

Date of Decision: 17 March 2020

---------------------

DECISION

--------------------

Application

1.I refer to my decisions dated 30 September 2019 and 25 November 2019 for the history of the present action.

2.This is the defendant’s application by letter dated 3 December 2019 to vary the costs order nisi in my decision dated 25 November 2019 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, I:-

(1) dismissed the defendant’s application dated 16 September 2019 for stay of execution;

(2) dismissed the defendant’s application by letter dated 10 October 2019 to vary the costs order nisi in my decision dated 17 December 2018;

(3) allowed the plaintiff’s application for an unless order;

(4) made a costs order nisi against the defendant of and occasioned by the above 3 applications (the “Costs Order Nisi”).

The defendant’s application to vary the Costs Order Nisi

3.The Costs Order Nisi followed the result that the defendant’s applications for security for costs and variation of costs order nisi were dismissed; and that the plaintiff’s application for an unless order was allowed.

4.The defendant says: “I hereby make an application to vary re: “Cost” stated in your p.12 of your Order. I totally reject. My ground is that “waste cost” was only on the side of counsel/solicitor of plaintiff together with the abuse of cost and acceptance by your Honour.… As a layman, I don’t know and did not know the proper application for a wasted costs order as per the Plaintiff’s letter mentioned, last paragraph. And application for leave to appeal “wholly” the Orders of Judge Phoebe Man is on the way.”.

5.An application for leave to appeal is not a ground to vary a costs order nisi. I agree with the plaintiff that the defendant has not put forward any ground why costs should not follow the event. There is also no ground for the defendant to assert that a “wasted costs” order should be imposed on the plaintiff.

6.The defendant’s application to vary the Costs Order Nisi is thus dismissed.

7.I grant a costs order nisi that the defendant shall pay the costs of and occasioned by this application to vary the Costs Order Nisi, such costs to be summarily assessed on 7 February 2020 at 9:30 am.