Forever Property Finance Company Ltd v. Barretto, Bernice Mary

HCA 2189/2015

[2023] HKCFI 2783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2189 OF 2015

_________________

_________________

HCA 505/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 505 OF 2021

_________________

_________________

_________________

DECISION

_________________

1.On 13 October 2023, this Court handed down a Judgment (“the Judgment”) in the two money lender actions herein, and ordered on a nisi basis that the defendant shall bear the plaintiff’s costs of the actions[1] to be taxed on solicitor and own client basis if not agreed (“the Order Nisi”).

2.Pursuant to paragraph 42 of the Judgment, the defendant, by letter dated 18 October 2023 (“the Application Letter”), wrote to this Court and stated:

“1. I apply to omit costs order nisi Paragraph 42 in Judgment dated 13 October 2023 due to known mental and health deterioration with adjustment disorder, severe Impetigo complicated with Atopic dermatitis, Anaemia with immediate blood transfusions and coughing with medical proof dated 19 September 2023 and medical reasons since 2005.

2. I will take further actions to oppose and strike out the above inaccurate Judgment Paragraphs 1 to 43 as repeated in my 5^th letter dated 17 October 2023.”

3.I take it that the defendant is applying by virtue of the Application Letter to vary the Order Nisi, such that there shall be no order as to the costs of the actions.

4.As set out above, the reasons relied on by the defendant for the variation application are that she had certain medical conditions. 

5.Even if the defendant is really suffering from the various medical problems as alleged, this would not amount to a valid ground in varying the Order Nisi in the circumstances where she had lost both actions.

6.I therefore dismiss the defendant’s application.  The Order Nisi is hereby made absolute.

7.Since the defendant’s application is totally without merits, in order to save time and costs, this Court did not invite the plaintiff to make submissions in response to the Application Letter. 

8.Having taken into account the length of the Application Letter and the fact that it is apparent that the grounds relied on are totally unmeritorious, I hold the view that the costs of the plaintiff’s solicitors in the perusal of the said letter must be minimal.  I therefore make no order as to the costs of the defendant’s application.

Li Kwok & Law for the plaintiff was not invited to lodge submissions

The defendant was not represented