Stephen Finley v. Home & Home Properties Ltd. and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 11244/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 September 2002.
1. This is the 2nd defendant's application for leave to re-amend his defence. It was made known at the beginning of today's hearing that the application was not opposed by the plaintiff. Leave to do so was given accordingly.
Cites 1 case
|
HCA011244/1996 HCA 11244/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 11244 OF 1996 ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Chung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 3 September 2002 Date of Decision: 3 September 2002 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.This is the 2nd defendant's application for leave to re-amend his defence. It was made known at the beginning of today's hearing that the application was not opposed by the plaintiff. Leave to do so was given accordingly. 2.Counsel for the 2nd defendant very fairly indicated that the 2nd defendant is willing to accept:
3.However, this was rejected by the plaintiff who insisted that under the circumstances, the right costs order is to award costs of and occasioned by and thrown away by and incidental to this application to be paid forthwith by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed on an indemnity basis. The plaintiff also suggested that there be a stay of proceedings pending the taxation and/or payment of those costs. 4.I do not think it necessary to set out in detail the relevant circumstances. In short, I agree with the 2nd defendant that there is nothing sufficiently out of the ordinary to justify the unusual order sought by the plaintiff. 5.To conclude, the costs order I will make is:
Representation: Plaintiff acts in person and present Mr Peter Graham, instructed by Messrs Joseph C T Lee & Co., for the 2nd Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 11244/1996