Bedrock Manufacturing Europe Bv and Another v. Whalet Ltd

HCA 1026/2022

[2026] HKCFI 5771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1026 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.Further to the Judgment handed down on 21 September 2026, I am invited by the Plaintiffs to postpone any decision on costs on the basis that they are considering whether to lodge an appeal against the decision. The deadline for them to do so is 20 October 2026, and they submit that it would be more efficient for the Court and for the parties to deal with the issue of trial costs only when (and if) they decide not to pursue an appeal. They have referred me to two cases, Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd (No 2) [2014] 4 HKC 61 at paragraphs 24 to 26, and Hung Fung Enterprises Holdings Ltd & Anor v Agricultural Bank of China [2015] 2 HKC 459 at paragraph 12.

2.The Plaintiffs point out that the deadline is only two weeks away, and say that there will be no prejudice to the Defendants as a result of this short delay. That would be an attractive argument if all they were asking for is a delay of two weeks, but that will only be true if they decide not to appeal. If, on the other hand, I agree to their request and they do decide to go ahead with an appeal, the effect would be that there would be no order for costs until the conclusion of the appeal process.

3.As the Defendant points out, an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings. That is expressly provided by Order 59 rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court. Furthermore, the cases relied on by the Plaintiffs do not support a general argument in favour of delaying any decision on costs until any appeal has been exhausted. If that were the correct principle, it is difficult to see why any order for costs should be made so long as there was an appeal outstanding – or even, as in the present case, so long as one of the parties was considering an appeal.

4.For that reason, I decline to postpone a decision on costs until the Plaintiffs have decided whether or not to appeal.

5.The Defendants have asked for the Plaintiffs to be given 7 days from the date of the Court’s directions to file and serve their written submissions on costs, followed by 7 days for the Defendant to file and serve its written submissions. The Plaintiffs have asked for a more relaxed timetable: 21 days for their written submissions; 21 days for the Defendant; and then a further 14 days for written submissions in reply. But even on the shortest timetable, it will be more than two weeks from today before any order for costs is actually made, by which time the Plaintiffs will have made up their minds about an appeal. Nothing would have been achieved by writing in an additional 14 days’ delay.

6.I therefore direct as follows –

a.  The Plaintiffs do file and serve their written submissions on costs within 14 days from the date of this Order;

b.  The Defendant do file and serve its written submissions in reply within 14 days after service of the Plaintiffs’ submissions;

c.  The Plaintiffs have leave to serve written submissions in response within 7 days thereafter;

d.  The issue of costs be disposed of on the papers.

Kenix Yuen Law Firm, for the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs

Anthony Siu & Co., for the Defendant