Read the full judgment text of HCCT 10/2003 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 6 June 2003 before Deputy High Court Judge To.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Interlocutory injunction — Costs order — Whether to make final interlocutory costs order or defer to trial — Justification for injunction application — Interpretation of 'holding the ring' principle in costs — Plaintiff, main contractor, obtained ex parte injunction to restrain Defendants (subcontractors and their employees) from entering site following termination of 1st Defendant's sub-contract due to poor performance — 2nd Defendant and related Defendants refused to vacate despite notice and injunction — Plaintiff sought interlocutory costs against 2nd and certain Defendants while Defendants sought costs reserved or in the cause — Court discussed established Hong Kong and UK authority, including Kickers International SA and TKI Ltd, emphasizing court’s discretion to decide interlocutory costs based on facts and the risk of injustice — Court found Plaintiff’s injunction application justified, Defendants’ defence not credible, and trial unlikely to proceed to dispute costs — Rejected Defendants’ argument to defer costs under ‘holding the ring’ principle — Ordered Plaintiff to have interlocutory costs of the injunction applications against 2nd, 6th, and 8th Defendants — Costs order intended to avoid unnecessary expenses and settle costs promptly given the overall circumstances.
Legal issues: Interlocutory costs order discretion · Justification for injunction application · Application of 'holding the ring' principle
Outcome: Plaintiff justified in seeking injunction; Plaintiff awarded interlocutory costs against 2nd, 6th, and 8th Defendants
Cited by 5 cases