Ting Shuk Man, Sylvia v. Wong Tak, By Wong Kowk Leung His Guardian Ad Litem
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1440/2016 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 16 September 2020.
1. On 12 March 2020, I handed down my Judgment (the “ Judgment ”) dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. I also made a number of Declarations in favor of the Defendant. On costs, I made a costs order nisi (the “ Costs Order Nisi ”) that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the costs of these proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 1440/2016 [2020] HKCFI 2435 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1440 OF 2016 ______________
______________
______________________ DECISION ON COSTS ______________________ 1.On 12 March 2020, I handed down my Judgment (the “Judgment”) dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. I also made a number of Declarations in favor of the Defendant. On costs, I made a costs order nisi (the “Costs Order Nisi”) that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the costs of these proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed. 2.By submissions dated 16 June 2020, Ms So, counsel for the Defendant, seeks to vary the Costs Order Nisi such that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, with certificate for two counsel. 3.By her submissions dated 14 June 2020 [sic], Ms Lam, counsel for the Plaintiff, resists both variations. Indemnity costs 4.The legal principles applicable to an application for indemnity costs are not in dispute — see Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (2004) 7 HKCFAR 114, per Li CJ at §§12‑16. I will not repeat them. 5.Ms So’s main submission is that the Plaintiff’s claims were hopeless, vexatious and/or frivolous. That is reinforced by a Calderbank letter issued by the Defendant’s solicitors with a “drop hands” offer. 6.Ms Lam’s main submission is that the Defendant has failed to discharge his burden in proving that an indemnity costs order is warranted and appropriate in the circumstances of the present case. 7.I have set out my analysis of the issues involved in the case in the Judgment:
8.In my view, the above, together with the usual features I have summarized at §2 of the Judgment, constitute “special or unusual features” which make this case an appropriate one for indemnity costs. Certificate for two counsel 9.The facts of the case were largely not disputed. 10.No heavy documentation was involved. 11.The amount involved was not substantial. 12.Examination of witnesses was not extensive. 13.There are legal issues involved. But the related legal research ought not to have been complex. It is a question of locating the right cases concerning, principally, the doctrine of tenancy by estoppel. The analysis of the authorities located might require expertise and skill, but which a senior junior or a silk is perfectly capable of doing without necessarily the assistance of any junior. Conclusion 14.I vary the Costs Order Nisi to the extent that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the costs of these proceedings on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed. Those costs are to include 75% of the costs of this application to vary (hence to include the costs of the Summonses of 6 May 2020 and 27 May 2020) to reflect my refusal to give a certificate for 2 counsel). While the engagement of a silk or a senior junior is appropriate, I remain not satisfied that this is an appropriate case for two counsel.
Written Submissions by Ms Flora Lam, instructed by Cheng & Wong, for the Plaintiff Written Submissions by Ms Natalie So, instructed by Victor Chan & Co, for the Defendant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1440/2016