BabelCite

Jikan Development Ltd and Another v. The Incorporated Owners of Million Fortune Industrial Centre

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 9 January 2004 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Millett NPJ.

Civil procedure – costs – appeal – costs order nisi – application for different order – costs follow the event – Court of Final Appeal – Jikan Development Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Million Fortune Industrial Centre – appeals dismissed – order nisi made absolute – 1st appellant's written submission seeking no order as to costs rejected – 1st appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs of appeals and of written submission opposing other order

Legal issues: Costs order on appeal

Outcome: Appeals dismissed; order nisi on costs made absolute.

Case No.
Court
Date09 Jan 2004
JudgeChief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Millett NPJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FACV000002A/2003

FACV Nos. 2 & 3 of 2003

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NOS. 2 and 3 OF 2003 (CIVIL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NOS. 381 and 503 OF 2001)

_________________

Between
JIKAN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 1st Appellant/
1st Defendant
PLOTIO PROPERTY AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED 2nd Appellant/
2nd Defendant
AND
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE Respondent/
Plaintiff

____________________

Court: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ,Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Millett NPJ

Date of Judgment: 9 January 2004

________________________

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.On 6 November 2003 the Court dismissed these appeals and made an order nisi that the respondent's costs thereof be paid by the appellants. The Court directed that any application for some other order as to costs would be dealt with upon written submissions. No such application has been made by the 2nd appellant, but the 1st appellant has filed a written submission by which it seeks some other order as to costs. That written submission sets out a number of arguments and concludes as follows:

"Accordingly, the orders on costs awarded by the courts below ought to be quashed. On a half-half basis, the costs incurred by the parties at the final hearing ought also to be equated to zero and no order as to costs for the hearing on the 15th, 16th and 17th October, 2003 ought to be awarded."

2.The respondent has responded by way of a brief written submission to the effect that the costs of these appeals should follow the event.

3.We do not propose to rehearse the arguments contained in the 1st appellant's written submission. Suffice it to say that they do not persuade us that any other order should be made. The order nisi is made absolute. We also order that the 1st appellant pay the respondent's costs of its written submission opposing some other order as to costs.

(Andrew Li) (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan)
Chief Justice Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

(Henry Litton) (Lord Millett)
Non-Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge

Representation:

Mr Sui See Chun and Mr Albert Li Kwong Choi (instructed by Messrs B.C. Chow & Co) for the 1st appellant

Mr Barrie Barlow and Ms Jane Curzon Lo (instructed by Messrs Wong Poon Chan Law & Co) for the 2nd appellant

Mr Kenneth H.W. Kwok, SC and Mr Earnest W.H. Cheung (instructed by Messrs Ho & Tam) for the respondent