Bms Group International Ltd v. Justin Lim Shao Cherm and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 22/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 March 2021.
1. By my decision handed down on 17 December 2020, I dismissed D7’s appeal, and allow P’s application for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 3. I make a costs order nisi that P shall have the costs of the appeal save the costs occasioned by the 2 adjournments, which costs are to D7.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCA 22/2017 [2021] HKCFI 841 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 22 OF 2017 ______________
______________ Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers Date of Statement of Costs by the 7th Defendant: 20 January 2021 Date of Grounds of Objection by the Plaintiff: 5 February 2021 Date of Reply to the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Objection by the 7th Defendant: 19 February 2021 Date of Decision on Costs: 29 March 2021 _______________________ DECISION ON COSTS _______________________ 1.By my decision handed down on 17 December 2020, I dismissed D7’s appeal, and allow P’s application for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 3. I make a costs order nisi that P shall have the costs of the appeal save the costs occasioned by the 2 adjournments, which costs are to D7. 2.On 30 December 2020, D7 wrote in for costs of P’s applications for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 2 and Proposed RASOC/Ver 3, together with the costs occasioned by the 2 adjournments which I have already ordered. The Statement of Costs was lodged on 20 January 2021. 3.I agree that D7 should have the costs of P’s applications for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 2 and Proposed RASOC/Ver 3. 4.P filed its Grounds of Objection on 5 February 2021. D7 filed its Reply on 19 February 2021. 5.Bearing in mind the nature of the appeal, and having regard to the cases cited to me, I am of the view that the instruction of Mr Sham is sufficient to deal with the appeal, and it is not necessary to engage a co‑counsel. I disallow the related counsel fees at Part F of the Statement. 6.I accept the objections made on P’s behalf that Parts C and D are excessive. 7.I allow counsel’s fee incurred on drafting, as being occasioned by P’s application for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 3. The sum of HK$50,000 is however on the high side, which I only allow half. 8.Applying a broad brush approach, I summarily assessed D7 related costs at HK$280,000. 9.I have received no submissions as to how and when the assessed sum is to be paid. As I have awarded costs of the appeal save the 2 adjournments to P, set‑off between the parties may arise. I therefore make no order in this regard.
Statement of Costs and Reply to the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Objection by Tang and So, for the 7th Defendant Grounds of Objection by Cheung & Yip, for the Plaintiff | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 22/2017