Dieter Heinz Steimecke and Others v. Armidale Ltd. and Others

CACV000080A/1999

CACV80/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 11299 OF 1997)

------------------------------------------------------------

Coram: Hon. Nazareth, V.-P. and Mayo, J.A. in Court

Date of hearing: 27 July 1999

Date of delivery of decision: 27 July 1999

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

Mayo J.A. (giving the decision of the Court):

1. In our order nisi we did not state either that the costs should be paid forthwith or that they should be paid in any event. There was accordingly a lack of clarity. Both parties accept that the usual rule under Order 62 rule 4 is that interlocutory costs are taxed and paid at the conclusion of the litigation and that the usual words used to achieve this is costs to the party in any event.

2. Mr. Westbrook advances four grounds to justify a departure from the usual practice.

1. The application was self-contained or disparate.

2. Additional expense was occasioned by the fact that three-tiers of litigation were involved.

3. The application was made of at the commencement of the proceedings and accordingly the Plaintiffs would kept out of their money for some considerable period of time.

4. The disparity in the economic circumstances of the parties. Namely that the Plaintiff is an individual and the Defendant is a major international corporation.

3. We do not consider that any of these matters constitutes a sufficient ground to justify us in departing from the usual practice. Accordingly we add the words "in any event" to the order nisi we made.

Representation:

Mr. Simon Westbrook instructed by M/S Beiten Burkhardt Mittl & Wegener for Plaintiffs

Mr. Paul Carolan instructed by M/S Stevenson, Wong & Lai for 3rd Defendant