Lee Chick Choi v. The Hong Kong Golf Club
Read the full judgment text of DCEO 11/2019 on BabelCite. This DCEO judgment was delivered on 30 April 2024.
1. By a summons dated 12 December 2023, the Claimant seeks leave to appeal against my decision dated 28 November 2023 (“ Summary Assessment ”) [1] , which is my summary assessment of the costs ordered to be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent carried out pursuant to §§5.5 and 5.6 of my decision dated 11 October 2023 (“ October Decision ”) [2] .
Cites 3 cases
|
DCEO 11/2019 [2024] HKDC 661 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACTION NO 11 OF 2019 --------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------- DECISION -------------------------- 1.By a summons dated 12 December 2023, the Claimant seeks leave to appeal against my decision dated 28 November 2023 (“Summary Assessment”)[1], which is my summary assessment of the costs ordered to be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent carried out pursuant to §§5.5 and 5.6 of my decision dated 11 October 2023 (“October Decision”)[2]. 2.By the October Decision, I dismissed the Claimant’s Variation Application, Stay Application and Leave Application (as defined therein) and made costs orders absolute against the Claimant at §§5.2 to 5.4. 3.The following matters may be gleaned from the Claimant’s affirmation filed in support of the present application:
4.The Claimant chose the former option; hence the present application. 5.At Summary Assessment §2, I already recorded that (1) the Claimant’s objections only sought to argue that I should not have ordered costs on an indemnity basis in respect of the Leave Application and the Stay Application, and any such argument, if pursued, should be by way of an appeal (as the costs orders made were on an absolute basis) and (2) the Claimant otherwise made no submission on the quantum of the costs claimed by the Respondent. 6.Where the Claimant did not raise any objections against the Respondent’s Bills of Costs, it is difficult to see how he can now complain that my assessment is in error. Indeed, the deductions made in the Claimant’s favour to the sums claimed by the Respondent were made on bases not raised by him: October Decision §5.5 and Summary Assessment §§1, 3-8. 7.In the present application, the Claimant has not pointed out how my assessment has fallen into error. This is not the first time the court has observed that the manner in which the Claimant pursues an application for leave to appeal is defective by reason of his failure to set out concise grounds in a draft Notice of Appeal: October Decision §2.2. 8.The present application is therefore dismissed. 9.Parties have already made submissions on the incidence of costs. As in previous applications, the Claimant asks for no order as to costs. In my view, costs should follow event and the lack of merits in the present application is such that costs of the present application should be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent on an indemnity basis. 10.It is appropriate for costs to be summarily assessed. I have considered the Respondent’s Bill of Costs. The present application does not warrant involvement of counsel. On a broad-brush basis, costs are summarily assessed at HK$20,000. Although the Claimant has made certain comments on the Respondent’s Bill of Costs, it is unclear whether such comments are intended to set out the Claimant’s full objections as no order has been made for him to do so. Out of an abundance of caution, the assessment is on a nisi basis. Absent any application to vary the nisi assessment within 14 days hereof, the assessment will become absolute.
The claimant acting in person Mr Martin Kok, instructed by Mayer Brown, for the respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCEO 11/2019