Haller Ag and Another v. Vestey International Group Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 85/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 March 2023 before Hon Chu VP and Hon G Lam JA.
Civil procedure – costs – summary assessment – appeal costs – double-counting objection – The court previously ordered plaintiffs to pay two-thirds of the 2nd defendant's costs on appeal. On summary assessment, the 2nd defendant claimed $922,783 for Part 3 costs. The plaintiffs objected that some work overlapped with the leave application below. The court assessed Part 3 costs at $600,000, resulting in $400,000 payable by the plaintiffs.
Legal issues: Summary assessment of costs on appeal
Outcome: The 2nd defendant's costs in this court are assessed at $600,000, of which the plaintiffs must pay two-thirds amounting to $400,000.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
CAMP 85/2022 & CACV 454/2022 [2023] HKCA 274 CAMP 85/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 85 OF 2022 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO 2988 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ CACV 454/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 454 OF 2022 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 2988 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ (Heard together)
______________________________________________________________ DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS ______________________________________________________________ Hon G Lam JA (giving the Decision on Summary Assessment of Costs of the Court): 1.In our judgment on the appeal handed down on 21 November 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1743), we made an order nisi that the plaintiffs are to pay two-thirds of the 2nd defendant’s costs both here and below, with a certificate for two counsel. It was subsequently directed, by consent, that the 2nd defendant’s costs in this court (i.e. in relation to CAMP 85/2022 and CACV 454/2022) be summarily assessed by this court. This is our decision on the assessment. 2.The relevant items of costs for present purposes are set out in Part 3 of the 2nd defendant’s statement of costs, with a total amount of $922,783 (before applying the proportion of two-thirds). There is some force in the plaintiffs’ objection that part of the work for the application to this court for leave to appeal would have been done in the application to the court below for leave to appeal, the costs of which are included in Part 2 of the statement of costs. 3.Having reviewed all relevant materials, we assess the total amount of Part 3 in the sum of $600,000. Two-thirds of that will be $400,000.
Messrs. Lau, Horton & Wise LLP, for the Plaintiffs (Respondents) Messrs. DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the 2nd Defendant (Appellant) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 85/2022