Read the full judgment text of HCCT 18/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 11 April 2022 before Deputy High Court Judge Winnie Tsui.
Costs — interlocutory injunction — discretionary costs order — leave to appeal costs order — whether plaintiff was successful party — Order 14 final injunction application dismissed, interlocutory injunction granted — Undertakings given by plaintiff to alleviate defendant's concern but injunction granted on merits independently — no default rule applying to costs in interlocutory injunction cases — discretion to order immediate costs award — Order 62, r.7(1) improper or unnecessary application — unsuccessful application not necessarily improper — leave to appeal costs not granted as no reasonable prospect of success. In this case concerning repair of a damaged concrete slab resulting in water seepage, the plaintiff sought mandatory injunction on two bases in a summons. The final application under Order 14 was dismissed but interlocutory under Order 29 granted with undertakings. The defendant sought leave to appeal the costs order awarding plaintiff 70% costs of the summons. The court analysed the defendant's grounds including alleged errors on the effect of undertakings and improper application under Order 14. The judge found the interlocutory injunction was granted on its merits, and the plaintiff was the practical winner despite failing the final order. The costs discretion was properly and reasonably exercised according to established principles, including Chow Steel Industries. Having found no reasonable prospect of success in the grounds and no other interests of justice warranting appeal, the court dismissed defendant's summons for leave to appeal and ordered plaintiff costs of summons assessed at HK$60,000.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal costs order · Costs order for interlocutory injunction · Costs order for Order 14 application
Outcome: The defendant's summons for leave to appeal the costs order is dismissed.
Cites 7 cases