John Chuang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Hong Kong Ltd

HCA002411/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 2411 OF 1973

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Mr. Registrar Oliver in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 13th January 1975.

-----------------

DECISION

-----------------

1. In this case judgment was obtained on 27th March 1974 and it was so directed that on that date the action be dismissed with costs to be taxed.

2. The bill of costs was filed by the Defendant's solicitors on the 26th April 1974 and it was taxed on the 21st May 1974.

3. Objections to the taxation were filed by the Defendant's solicitors and the Taxing Registrar reviewed the taxation on the 18th July, 1974.

4. He reserved his decision upon the review and the parties were handed down his decisions upon the review on 5th October 1974.

5. The bill was finally allowed in the sum of $36,158.60.

6. No specific Hong Kong authority has been a ted to me to render it mandatory that interest should be added to taxed costs. Indeed this is the first case which has come before me in which the point has been taken. Mr. Morris who sought to advance the argument in favour of this proposition fell back on English authorities and to support them he cited the general provisions of Sec. 6 of the Supreme Court Ordinance, Cap. 4.

7. It is true that specific provisions existed before the 1967 Rules came into existence. Order 16 rule 8 of the former Code of Civil Procedure reads:

"Unless the court otherwise orders interest on costs, at such rate as may for the time being be fixed by the court, shall be recoverable as costs from the date of judgment to the date of payment."

No similar provision was made in the 1967 Rules of the Supreme Court when they were brought into force.

8. The question of interest in Hong Kong was considered in China Mutual Trading Co. Ltd. v. Banque Belge Pour L'E' tranger (Extreme-Orient) S.A. 1955 H.K.L.R. P. 158. It was ruled that provision did exist independently of the provision in the Code but it was a discretionary right and interest should only be awarded upon consideration of all the circumstances pointing to the fact that it would be fair and just to do so.

9. A period of time has elapsed from the date of judgment to the date when costs were paid in this case but I don't think that it is excessive and in the exercise of my discretion I order that no interest be paid on the taxed costs.

10. In the circumstances this application that interest be added to the taxed costs of $36,158.60 is dismissed. No order as to the costs of this application is made.

11. Dated this the 13th day of January, 1975.

Representation: