Read the full judgment text of FACV 1/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 January 2020 before 李義, 霍兆剛, 張舉能, 包致金, 廖柏嘉勳爵.
Civil law – costs – assessment basis – indemnity basis – common fund basis – party-and-party basis – exercise of discretion – whether to depart from usual basis – taxation – salaries tax – appeal – Court of Final Appeal – costs of costs submissions – taxpayer opposed 2008/09 salaries tax assessment of approximately HK$7,400,250 and paid tax by 1 February 2010 partly by tax reserve certificates – Board of Review and Court of First Instance decided for Commissioner – Court of Appeal reversed in taxpayer's favour – CFA dismissed Commissioner's further appeal with provisional party-and-party costs order – taxpayer applied to vary order to indemnity or common fund basis – whether public-interest considerations warranted indemnity basis – whether disparity in resources and inconvenience to taxpayer constituted special or unusual circumstances – whether Commissioner's conduct was unreasonable or devoid of merit to degree warranting costs penalty – correct approach to discretionary costs orders above usual basis – reasonable foreseeability and consistency in exercise of costs discretion – application to vary costs order refused – provisional order for party-and-party costs to be assessed by court if not agreed stands as absolute – each party to bear its own costs of costs submissions.
Legal issues: Whether costs of CFA appeal should be assessed on indemnity or common fund basis instead of party-and-party basis
Outcome: Application to vary the provisional costs order to indemnity or common fund basis refused; provisional order for party-and-party costs to be assessed by the court if not agreed stands as absolute. Each party to bear its own costs of the costs submissions.
Cited by 15 cases · Cites 1 case