Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP002704/1998

HCMP 2704/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2704 OF 1998

____________

	IN THE MATTER OF ALL THOSE 8 equal undivided 3,000th parts or shares of and in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as The Remaining Portion of Inland Lot No. 5258 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as "KWONG CHIU TERRACE" ("the said Building") TOGETHER with the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT UNIT being FLAT B-1 on the TWENTY-THIRD FLOOR (also known as APARTMENT 1 on the TWENTY-THIRD FLOOR of Block B) of the said Building

	AND

	IN THE MATTER of an Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 18th March 1998

	AND

	IN THE MATTER of Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap.219

____________

BETWEEN
	WONG WAI LAN	Plaintiff

	AND

	TAM FUNG LAN SANDRA	Defendant

	AND

	LAU WONG & CHAN (a firm)	Third Party

____________

Coram: Hon Chung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 11 October 2001

Date of Decision: 11 October 2001

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.This is the decision on the costs of the "time" summons taken out by the Defendant on 20 September 2001. As is usual for "time" summonses, there are 2 sets of costs involved in the present application. The first set of costs is the costs of the "time" summons itself. Those costs, as Mr Tsang for the Defendant fairly accepts, are covered by RHC O. 62 r. 3(4) and should be paid by the Defendant to the Third Party. I understand the costs awarded in the Masters' Chambers for such summonses usually range from $500 to $800 which represent in essence the costs covering about 15 minutes of the solicitors' time. I do not see any valid reason to depart from such range in the present case. The costs of the summons are fixed at $800 and are to be paid by the Defendant to the Third Party.

2.The second set of costs is the costs of the summons leading to the hearing. This would include any costs incurred in preparing for the hearing, for example, correspondence, legal research (if any) and perusal of relevant documents.

3.The Third Party's stance prior to the hearing was that they would only consent to the "time" summons of the Defendant if the Defendant agrees to waive interest for the period of delay. The Defendant refused to accept this and took out the "time" summons. The Third Party simply opposes the "time" summons at the hearing without referring to the said "condition".

4.At the end of today's hearing, the Defendant turns out to be the successful party because an order in terms of the "time" summons was made without condition being imposed. The second set of costs should therefore follow the usual rule that costs are to follow the event. Those costs should therefore be paid by the Third Party to the Defendant. I will hear the parties as to whether those costs should be fixed under O. 62 r. 9(4)(b) or be taxed if not agreed. The Defendant's own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

[After hearing the parties, the costs of the summons leading to the hearing were fixed at $1,000.00.]

	(Andrew Chung)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

Representation:

Mr Tsang Hok Ming Philip of Messrs So, Keung, Yip & Sin, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant

Mr Ivan Yeung of Messrs Deacons, for the Third Party

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Wong Wai Lan v. Tam Fung Lan Sandra

HCMP 2704/1998

High Court CFI30 Dec 2002

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 2704/1998

Wong Wai Lan v. Tam Fung Lan Sandra

High Court CFI30 Dec 2002