毓華樓業主立案法團 v. 蔡六乘 and Others
Read the full judgment text of LDBM 40/2001 on BabelCite. This Lands Tribunal judgment was delivered on 17 August 2001.
1. The Applicant opposed the application for costs regarding the amendment on the basis that the point as to the correct number of total units, viz whether it should be 77 or 78 units were not raised in the Notice of Opposition and were only raised belatedly in the Respondents' skeleton opening.
Cited by 4 cases
|
LDBM000040/2001 IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION Application No. LDBM 40 of 2001 _________________
Coram: H.H. Judge LAM Date of Hearing: 17 August 2001 Date of Ruling: 17 August 2001 ----------------------- RULING ON COSTS ----------------------- 1.The Applicant opposed the application for costs regarding the amendment on the basis that the point as to the correct number of total units, viz whether it should be 77 or 78 units were not raised in the Notice of Opposition and were only raised belatedly in the Respondents' skeleton opening. 2.The applicant said that they should not be permitted to raise the point without an amendment of their Notice of Opposition. That may or may not be so. I do not have to decide that. This is because the Applicant, instead of objecting to the point being raised at the last hearing, chose to make an application for adjournment to enable them to put their house in order regarding this point and I am now dealing with their application for leave to amend their Form 29. 3.If the Applicant has confidence in their stance on the in inadmissibility of the point, they should have pursued with that objection at the hearing. That may have resulted in an application for amendment of the Notice of Opposition by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. But since the Applicant has taken another course, they have to accept its consequences. The Applicant said they adopted this course with a view to save time. However, I am of the view that they also did so in recognition of the fact that their previous calculation were wrong, hence the need for further meetings on 18 July 2001 and 24 July 2001 to approve the new calculation. In these circumstances, I hold that the usual rule applies and the Applicant has to bear the costs of the amendment.
Representation: Mr. C.W. CHAN of M/S S.K. Lam, Alfred Chan & Co., for the applicant Mr. CHAN Kai-wing, Henry of M/S Lo, Chan & Leung for the 1st to 3rd respondents The 4th respondent, absent |
Other judgments that cite this case