鄧錦祥 v. Source View Development Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1611/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 November 2022 before Deputy High Court Judge Leung.
Civil procedure – costs – application to set aside summary assessment of costs – abuse of process – indemnity costs – The plaintiff in HCA 1611/2019 and 2nd defendant in HCA 2275/2019 applied to set aside a costs order summarily assessing costs payable by him. The court found the application devoid of merits and dismissed it. Costs were awarded to the other party on an indemnity basis but summarily assessed at HK$15,000, as briefing counsel was not justified.
Legal issues: Application to set aside costs order
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
HCA 1611/2019 & HCA 2275/2019 [2022] HKCFI 3628 HCA 1611/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1611 OF 2019 _________________ BETWEEN
_________________ AND HCA 2275/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2275 OF 2019 _________________ BETWEEN
_________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Leung in Chambers Date of Hearing: 29 November 2022 Date of Decision: 29 November 2022 _________________ DECISION _________________ 1.By his summons filed on 9 September 2022, Tang applies to set aside the costs order of this court dated 29 August 2022. It was in fact the order whereby this court made the summary assessment of costs payable by Tang pursuant to the costs order of this court made in the decision dated 29 July 2022 in respect of these actions. 2.The costs order dated 29 July 2022 was nisi but became absolute in the absence of application to vary by either side within 14 days. What then remained was summary assessment of the costs payable by Tang. Pursuant to the same order, Source View has lodged its statement of costs and Tang has lodged his statements of objections. On 29 August 2022, this court summarily assessed the costs payable by Tang to be in the sum of HK$98,000, which should be paid in 14 days. 3.As of today, there is never challenge against the absolute costs order in terms of the order dated 29 July 2022. Nor is there application for leave to appeal against either the absolute costs order or the summary assessment. 4.Considering the contents of his application and affirmations in support, including the latest affirmations filed by Tang on 28 November 2022, I find no substance whatsoever, whether treating the present application as it is or as if this were an application for leave to appeal against the costs order or summary assessment. 5.This application is devoid of merits, and ought not to have been taken out. That Tang has lodged appeals which are in progress is quite another matter. He may continue to pursue such appeals. But the present application has to be dismissed. [Statement of costs from Source View and submissions on costs] 6.Costs should be to Source View on an indemnity basis on the ground that the present application is effectively an abuse of process. That said, the outcome of the present application must be obvious, and therefore briefing counsel to handle this application is not justified. Nor is it justified to put in the amount of work and to incur such costs as presented in the statement of costs. 7.Costs of Source View caused and occasioned by the present application is now summarily assessed in the lump sum of HK$15,000, payable by Tang in 7 days (from the date hereof).
The plaintiff in HCA 1611/2019 and 2nd defendant in HCA 2275/2019 appeared in person Mr Alex Fan, instructed by Wat & Co, for the defendant in HCA 1611/2019 and plaintiff in HCA 2275/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1611/2019