Ip Wing Kin v. Next Magazing Publishing Ltd. and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 12443/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 28 March 2001.

1. The Plaintiff is a practising dermatologist and brings this action against the Defendants in libel. On 20 November 1999, the Plaintiff took out a summons asking for parts of the Defence to be struck out. The Master dismissed that summons on 2 February 2000. The Plaintiff lodged a Notice of Appeal on 3 February 2000 seeking to reverse that order. The appeal was heard on 31 July 2000 and, in a written Judgment dated 11 August 2000, the Plaintiff's appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCA 12443/1999
Court
High Court CFI
Date28 Mar 2001
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA012443A/1999

HCA 12443/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 12443 OF 1999

__________

BETWEEN
IP WING KIN (葉榮根) Plaintiff
AND
NEXT MAGAZING PUBLISHING LIMITED 1st Defendant
CHEUNG KIM HUNG (張劍虹) 2nd Defendant
TSE CHI WING (謝志榮) 3rd Defendant
LAI MING FAI (黎明輝) 4th Defendant
WONG YUEN LING, PHELIA (黃婉玲) 5th Defendant
TOPPAN PRINTING CO. (H.K.) LIMITED 6th Defendant
TAK KEUNG KEE MAGAZINE & NEWSPAPER DISTRIBUTOR COMPANY LIMITED 7th Defendant

__________

Coram: Hon Chung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 28 March 2001

Date of Decision on Costs: 28 March 2001

____________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________________

1. The Plaintiff is a practising dermatologist and brings this action against the Defendants in libel. On 20 November 1999, the Plaintiff took out a summons asking for parts of the Defence to be struck out. The Master dismissed that summons on 2 February 2000. The Plaintiff lodged a Notice of Appeal on 3 February 2000 seeking to reverse that order. The appeal was heard on 31 July 2000 and, in a written Judgment dated 11 August 2000, the Plaintiff's appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed.

2. Today's hearing is for submissions to be made on the question of costs of the Plaintiff's summons and of the appeal.

3. A number of costs orders can be considered in a situation like this including the following:-

(a) a costs order to reflect the respective degree to which the parties have been successful in the outcome of the appeal;

(b) separate costs orders regarding the various issues raised at the appeal (and the hearing before the Master);

(c) each party to pay its (their) own costs;

(d) no order as to costs;

(e) costs in the cause of the action.

4. There is no need to go into the details save to say that, having taken into account the whole circumstance, I consider the parties to be equally successful (and equally unsuccessful) in the appeal (and in the Plaintiff's said application). The most appropriate course to take regarding costs is to make no order as to costs as regards both the appeal and the application before the Master.

(Andrew Chung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr Michael Yin, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the Plaintiff

Mr Anderson Chow, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Defendants

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCA 12443/1999