China Overseas Building Construction Ltd v. Profit Nation Development Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2011/2003 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 August 2004.

2. On (1), I will grant a certificate for two counsel for the reasons stated in my costs ruling in HCA2008/2003 of today's date.

Case No.HCA 2011/2003
Court
High Court CFI
Date04 Aug 2004
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA002011A/2003

HCA2011/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.2011 OF 2003

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

BETWEEN
CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD Plaintiff
AND
TRUE GOLD INVESTMENTS LTD 1st Defendant
GOLD-FACE HOLDINGS LTD 2nd Defendant
GOLD-FACE FINANCE LTD 3rd Defendant
TAI CHI WAH 4th Defendant
TAI CHIN WAH 5th Defendant

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

Coram: Hon Tang J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 19 May 2004

Date of Further Written Submission by the Plaintiff: 7 July 2004

Date of Further Written Submission by the Defendant: 14 July 2004

Date of Ruling on Costs: 4 August 2004

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

RULING ON COSTS

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

1.There are also two issues :

(1) certificate for two counsel; and
(2) the 1st defendant's costs in relation to the stay of the plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant for $30,417,991.

2.On (1), I will grant a certificate for two counsel for the reasons stated in my costs ruling in HCA2008/2003 of today's date.

3.As for (2), the stay is not academic and the 1st defendant is entitled to the costs attributable to its success on this point. Here, the application for stay related to the entirety of the plaintiff's claim, namely, $50,644,791. The 1st defendant succeeded as to $30,417,991. So the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were each partly successful.

4.I would not apportion costs according to the amount. In all circumstance, I think no order as to costs to be fair, although the time taken on the points on which the plaintiff succeeded probably exceeded the time taken on the points on which the 1st defendant succeeded. So there will be no order as to costs relating to the 1st defendant's application for a stay.

5.The plaintiff is to have costs of the action, including the costs of the Order 14 summons against all the defendants, with certificate for two counsel for the hearing before me. There is to be no order as to costs in relation to the 1st defendant's application for a stay. However the plaintiff is to have the costs of the application for a stay against the 2nd and 3rd defendants in respect of their application for a stay.

(Robert Tang)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Mr Warren Chan, SC and Mr Law Man Chung, instructed by Messrs Lily Fenn & Partners, for the Plaintiff

Mr Clifford Smith, instructed by Messrs Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co., for the Defendants

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2011/2003