Chun Wo Building Construction Ltd. v. China Merchants Tower Co Ltd. and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCCT107/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 6 March 2000 before Hon Burrell J.
Costs – Arbitration Ordinance (Cap.341) – consolidation of arbitrations – costs order nisi – parties’ submissions on costs – partial agreement and opposition – no fine tuning necessary – third respondent consented early to consolidation to minimize costs – no order as to third respondent’s costs – costs order nisi confirmed as final. The applicant initially sought to consolidate arbitrations which was opposed by the 1st and 2nd respondents but consented to by the 3rd respondent. Various submissions and correspondence revealed no full agreement on costs allocation. The court considered conduct and timing but found no justification to adjust costs or allocate differently. The 3rd respondent did not act wrongly, and their costs were balanced by the fact they were not opposed by others, leading to no order as to their costs. The court confirmed the costs order nisi as final to include costs of the additional hearing.
Legal issues: Costs order in arbitration consolidation proceedings
Outcome: Costs order nisi confirmed as final; no costs order made against the 3rd respondent.
|
HCCT000107A/1999 HCCT107/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO.107 OF 1999 ----------------------
----------------------- Coram: Hon Burrell J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 3 March 2000 Date of Judgment: 6 March 2000 ------------------------------------------------- ADDENDUM ON COSTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. Following the court's order nisi on costs, all respondents asked to be heard on the question of costs. Comparatively lengthy written and oral submissions were made. By reference to the correspondence, different parties have proposed a variety of different costs orders. The 1st respondent pointed to an "agreement" made in correspondence. The applicant correctly observed it was not a complete agreement. All respondents pointed to the fact that the applicant's request for consolidation was abandoned two days before the hearing. This made no difference to the position taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents at the hearing who unsuccessfully contested the applicant's alternative order, namely for an order that the arbitrations be heard together. It is plain from a reading of the whole of the correspondence that subject to the question of costs, the applicant would have agreed to, from the very beginning, an order that the arbitrations be heard together. The 1st respondent never agreed the costs and contested the whole issue; the 2nd respondent never intimated any agreement, even to the applicant's alternative proposal. 2. I am not persuaded that I should alter my costs order nisi. In particular, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to do any fine tuning of the costs order to reflect specific dates and times before or after which one party or another should not be liable to costs. Such fine tuning might be appropriate if criticism of the applicant's conduct of the proceedings were justified. I am satisfied that it is not. 3. The 3rd respondent indicated its consent to an order that the arbitrations be heard together at an early stage. It was anxious to keep costs to a minimum which I expect it has succeeded in doing. They nonetheless had to be included in the summons, by its very nature. There are compelling arguments why the applicant should not be liable for the 3rd respondent's costs. They did nothing wrong in relation to them. There are also arguments, albeit less compelling, why the 1st and/or 2nd respondents should not be liable. On the one hand, by their opposition to the summons, they caused them to be in court, but on the other hand they were not the 3rd respondent's opponents. I consider, in all the circumstances, that it is an appropriate case to make no order as far as the 3rd respondent's costs are concerned. This order was in fact, implicit in my order nisi which was silent as to the 3rd respondent. I made no order. 4. My costs order nisi shall stand as a final order and shall include the costs incurred by this additional hearing.
Representation: Mr Timothy Hill of Messrs Lovells, for the Applicant Mr Francis Ip of Messrs K.F. Wong & Co., for the 1st Respondent Mr Shaw of Messrs Deacons, Graham & James, for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents |
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT107/1999