Read the full judgment text of CACV 19/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 April 2022 before Kwan VP, Barma JA, Au JA.
Civil procedure – costs – exercise of discretion – costs following the event – appellate review of costs order – split costs order – no order as to costs – shareholder's right of inspection of company documents – section 740 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) – originating summons – search order – indemnity costs – unreasonable conduct – whether Deputy Judge erred in principle in awarding all costs of the Originating Summons to the respondents – held, yes – applicant was the substantial successful party on the main relief of production and inspection of the Documents – respondents had engaged in unreasonable conduct in refusing or failing to reply to repeated requests for the Documents over some seven months – search order was a minor part of the relief and the applicant's insistence on it and on indemnity costs after the respondents' late offer did not justify depriving him of all costs – it is most unusual and rare for a successful party to be ordered to bear the costs of the unsuccessful party – Court of Appeal exercised discretion afresh and ordered respondents jointly and severally to pay applicant's costs up to the Hearing, with no order as to costs for the Hearing – leave to appeal costs before Deputy Judge and this Court also ordered to be paid by respondents jointly and severally to the applicant – appeal allowed with costs.
Legal issues: Whether the Deputy Judge erred in principle in awarding all costs of the Originating Summons to the respondents · Whether the Court of Appeal should exercise its discretion on costs afresh and what order to make
Outcome: Appeal allowed; the Costs Order made by the Deputy Judge on 6 May 2020 was set aside.
Cited by 14 cases · Cites 3 cases