Read the full judgment text of HCCT 66/2024 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 5 December 2024 before Deputy High Court Judge R. Ismail S.C..
Costs — Indemnity Basis — Undertakings to File Evidence — Failure to File Sworn Evidence — Waste of Court Resources — Material Non-Disclosure on Ex Parte Application — Multiple Counsel — Summary Assessment — Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — The plaintiff brought an originating summons seeking an anti-suit injunction under Sections 21L and 21M of the High Court Ordinance and Section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance in relation to arbitration agreements evidenced by bills of lading. The plaintiff failed to file admissible sworn evidence by the substantive hearing date despite multiple undertakings, misleading the defendant and causing unnecessary expenditure of court resources. The Court considered principles under Order 62 RHC and relevant authorities including Town Planning Board and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Poon Cho-Ming John. The Court found the failure to file evidence and material non-disclosure justified a more generous indemnity basis of costs rather than party-party basis. Additionally, the complexity and significance of the case warranted two counsel for the defendant. The Court declined summary assessment on papers due to the substantial costs involved and absence of the plaintiff’s costs statement. The defendant’s costs were ordered on indemnity basis if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel granted.
Legal issues: Indemnity basis for costs · Certificate for two counsel · Summary assessment of costs
Outcome: Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the originating summons to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel granted.
Cited by 1 case