Read the full judgment text of HCCT000014A/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 January 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Costs — Variation of order nisi — Application to vary costs orders in summonses dated February 1998 — Whether substantial success justifies changing costs orders — Slip rule and finality of orders — Delay and reliance on original orders precluding variation — Reciprocal orders for costs of applications. In this case involving costs disputes between plaintiff KAILAY ENGINEERING COMPANY (HK) LIMITED and defendants including SILVER FAITH HOLDINGS LIMITED, the court initially made an order nisi allocating costs for summonses dated 20 and 27 February 1998. The plaintiff applied to vary the order nisi to gain a more favorable costs order and to add the phrase 'in any event' to certain orders. The court held that minor or partial success does not amount to substantial success needed to vary costs orders; the court also refused to vary a final order under the slip rule due to delay and plaintiff’s reliance on that order. Costs of these applications were split between parties given their relative lack of success. Ultimately, the costs order of 29 July 1998 was amended to include 'both in any event.' Orders nisi were made accordingly, with reciprocal costs orders for the applications.
Legal issues: Variation of order nisi as to costs
Outcome: The plaintiff's main application to vary the order nisi was refused; the order nisi was varied to add 'in any event' where requested; the first defendant's application to alter the final order was refused. Costs of the applications were ordered such that the plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of the plaintiff's application and the first defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the first defendant's application.