Read the full judgment text of HCA 1611/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 31 October 2022 before 楊家雄.
Civil procedure – costs – summary assessment of costs – appeal – scope of appeal – whether appellant may challenge underlying merits decisions in a costs appeal – striking out order – summary judgment under RHC Order 14 – indemnity basis costs. The appellant Mr Tang Kam Cheung appealed against the summary assessment of costs made by Master So Ka-yin on 11 July 2022 in HCA 1611/2019 and HCA 2275/2019 (including the transferred Lands Tribunal case LDPE 818/2019), whereby the respondent Source View Development Limited was awarded HK$150,000, HK$280,000 and HK$60,000 respectively. On 22 November 2021, Master So had ordered the striking out of Tang's claim in HCA 1611, summary judgment for Source View in HCA 2275 under Order 14 of the Rules of the High Court, and costs against Tang in both actions to be assessed summarily. Tang's appeal against the striking out and summary judgment was dismissed by Deputy Judge Leung on 29 July 2022. In his opposition statement before Master So, Tang raised no argument on the quantum of the assessment; he only contested the correctness of the underlying striking out and summary judgment. Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) Scope of costs appeal – the costs assessment appeal was confined to the quantum of the assessment. The correctness of the underlying striking out, summary judgment and costs liability order was not within the scope of the present appeal; the assessment was based on the prior costs liability order and the master was not required to revisit the merits of those earlier decisions. (2) Reasonableness of the assessment – Tang raised no argument on the amount of the assessment, and the assessed sums were reasonable with no error of law or fact. A provisional costs order was made against Tang on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed, unless Tang applied in writing within 14 days of the judgment.
Legal issues: Scope of appeal against summary assessment of costs · Reasonableness of the summary assessment amounts
Outcome: Appeal against the summary assessment of costs dismissed.
Cited by 23 cases · Cites 2 cases