Cheung Lai Mui, The Executrix of the Estate of Cheung Ping Kau and The Administratrix of the Estate of Cheung Ping Fuk (Alias Cheung Bing Fuk) v. Cheung Wai Shing and Others
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 27 July 2021.
2. The Court handed down its judgment on costs on 13 July 2021 [1] rejecting both sides’ submissions and essentially ordering that the costs should follow the event of the appeal.
Cites 1 case
|
FACV No. 1 of 2021 [2021] HKCFA 28 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2021 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 107 OF 2017) ________________________
________________________ Date of Ruling: 27 July 2021 ___________________________________ R U L I N G ___________________________________ Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 1.This is the Court’s Ruling. 2.The Court handed down its judgment on costs on 13 July 2021[1] rejecting both sides’ submissions and essentially ordering that the costs should follow the event of the appeal. 3.P was ordered to pay all of D3’s costs and, in so far as applicable, the costs of D1 and D2 in relation to the first dispute; and D1 and D2 to pay all of P’s costs in respect of the second dispute. The orders were to apply here and below and the costs certified fit for two counsel. 4.On 14 July 2021, solicitors for P wrote pointing out that at trial, D1-D3 (who were represented by two counsel) were awarded costs but did not seek or obtain a certificate for two counsel. They invited us to vary our order so that the first instance proceedings would not now be certified fit for two counsel. 5.By letter dated 22 July 2021, solicitors for D1-D3 objected to any change to our order under the pretext of “seeking clarification”. At the same time, they pointed out that the issue is academic since the second counsel appearing at first instance had recently completed pupillage and was there with her former pupil-master on a complimentary basis. 6.In the circumstances, we vary the Order made (but not perfected) in our judgment on costs so that paragraph 16(c) reads: “All such costs (other than costs at first instance) should be certified fit for two counsel”. 7.Variation is justified since it was not intended to vary the costs order made at first instance and certification is now known to serve no practical purpose given the complimentary basis of second counsel’s appearance. 8.We make no order as to costs regarding this latest correspondence.
Chan & Chan, for the Plaintiff (Appellant) Tung, Ng, Tse & Lam, for the 1st to 3rd Defendants (Respondents) |