Man Kam Hung v. The Commissioner of Estate Duty

HCMP000001A/1984

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

ESTATE DUTY APPEAL

___________

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Hunter.

Dates of Hearing: 3 & 4 April, 1 to 3, 6, 7 May 1985

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 23 May 1985

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. On costs, Mr. Mullick for the appellant submitted that his client should have his costs of this appeal, as from the filing of the notice of appeal. The appellant he submitted had succeeded. He had to come to the Court. The assessment had been reduced, not by as much as he would have wished but by an appreciable amount. Any such reduction should carry costs.

2. Mr. HUI for the respondent acknowledged that this argument might succeed in other appeals, but submitted that the position under section 22 was peculiar. The Commissioner was put in a rather special position. He would be at a grave disadvantage if any reduction in the assessment was held sufficient to carry costs against him. The Court, Mr. HUI submitted, should look to the merits, and to the success or failure of the parties' respective arguments on the appeal. He invited me either to make no order, or to give the appellants a proportion of their costs. He relied upon a decision of the Lands Tribunal in England given in June 1962 in the case of agdalen, Jesus and Keble Colleges v. City of Oxford.

3. I think that Mr. HUI is basically right and the order of costs should reflect not simply the result but the nature and success of the arguments put before the Court. I think that the justice of the case would best be met by giving the appellant 50% of his costs of this appeal as from the date of the filing of the notice of appeal.

Representation:

Mr. John Mullick instructed by M/s K.Y. Woo & Co. for Appellant.

Mr. Davis Hui, Crown Counsel for Responcent.