Cheung Wing Wah v. on Yip Property Development Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 3010/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 March 2021.
1. On 20 January 2021, I handed down my Judgment allowing part of P’s claim. At §94 of my judgment, I made a costs order nisi that P shall have 70% of his costs of the action.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCA 3010/2015 [2021] HKCFI 837 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 3010 OF 2015 ______________
______________ Before: Hon K Yeung J in Court Date of Written Application by the Plaintiff: 3 February 2021 Date of Reply Letter by the Defendant: 2 March 2021 Date of Decision on Costs: 29 March 2021 ___________________ DECISION ON COSTS ___________________ 1.On 20 January 2021, I handed down my Judgment allowing part of P’s claim. At §94 of my judgment, I made a costs order nisi that P shall have 70% of his costs of the action. 2.On 3 February 2021, P made a written application seeking variation of the costs order nisi. P seeks thereby a certificate for two counsel. 3.Upon my direction, D put in its reply on 2 March 2021. 4.P seeks a certificate for 2 counsel because in his submissions, the Pleadings Points pursued by D were not straightforward, and they were dealt with by Mr Yeung, co‑counsel with Mr Shek for P. 5.I accept the submissions made on D’s behalf that the instruction of Mr Shek should be sufficient to deal with all the issues involved in the case, including the Pleading Points. 6.I refuse P’s application for a certificate for 2 counsel. 7.D seeks costs of this application to vary. Whilst no statement of costs has been provided, I regard a sum of HK$4,000 as being reasonable. I order that P shall bear the costs of this application to vary, which I summarily assess at HK$4,000, to be set off from the 70% costs of the action which I have ordered that P shall have.
Written Application by Lee & Yik Lawyers, for the Plaintiff Reply Letter by Kao, Lee & Yip, for the Defendant | ||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 3010/2015