Read the full judgment text of HCMP 004738/2002 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 January 2003 before Hon Woo JA and Hon Cheung JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – taxation of costs – charging orders – matrimonial proceedings – District Court Rules – Order 62 – inherent jurisdiction – solicitor authority – deemed admission – Court of Appeal – High Court – CFK – LLL – Bough & Co. – Hon Woo JA – Hon Cheung JA – HCMP 4738/2002 – FCMC 7268/2000 – In re Macro (Ipswich) Ltd. – R. v. Taxing Officer, Exp. Bee-Line Railway Ltd. – The petitioner, CFK, sought leave to appeal against District Court orders regarding costs taxation and charging orders arising from matrimonial proceedings FCMC 7268/2000 – The respondent, LLL, was represented by Bough & Co. – The Court held that the authority of the solicitor had been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings on 18 January 2002 and could not be resurrected as a ground of appeal – The Court held that the proper procedure for challenging taxation under Order 62 rules 33, 34 and 35 of the Rules of the District Court was not followed as the petitioner failed to apply for a review by the taxing master first – There is no general right of appeal against an allocatur – The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court did not apply as the matters relating to authority, bill of costs, and quantification were suitable for review under the statutory mechanism – The Court held that Notices to admit did not result in deemed admission under Order 27 rule 2 of the Rules of the District Court – The Masters' orders regarding adjournment and costs were discretionary and not at fault – The charging orders were correctly made absolute as there was no ground to set aside the allocatur and costs orders – The Court held that there was no arguable point of appeal – Leave to appeal was refused – Orders: Leave to appeal refused.
Legal issues: Authority of solicitor · Procedure for challenging taxation · Inherent jurisdiction · Notices to admit · Leave to appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused
Cites 1 case