Read the full judgment text of CACV 116/2003 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 October 2004 before Yeung JA, Lam J.
Civil procedure – costs – costs order nisi – application to vary – appeal succeeding on new point not canvassed below – Turquand point – whether there is a general rule that successful appellant on new point should have costs below but no order as to appeal costs – discretion in costs – no fixed rule or formula – Goddard v Jeffreys, Simpson v Crowle, Take Harvest Ltd v George Liu, and Lo Ka Chun v Lo To considered – successful appellant ordered to pay costs below where new point misdirected court's focus – costs of appeal to follow event as between 1st Petitioner and 3rd and 4th Respondents – separate costs orders for 2nd Petitioner's abandonment and 1st Petitioner's unsuccessful appeal against 5th Respondent – question of 1st and 6th Respondents' adjournment costs remitted to Chu J – each party to bear his/her own costs of the 24 September 2004 hearing.
Legal issues: Whether the Turquand point was a new point taken on appeal · Whether a fixed rule applies to costs when an appellant succeeds on a new point · Costs of the appeal as between 1st Petitioner and 3rd and 4th Respondents · Costs of the appeal occasioned by abandonment by 2nd Petitioner and costs against 5th Respondent · Costs of the 1st and 6th Respondents occasioned by the adjournment · Costs of the costs hearing on 24 September 2004
Outcome: Costs order nisi made absolute in the same terms, with additional orders in respect of the 2nd Petitioner's abandonment and the 5th Respondent; the question of adjournment costs remitted to Chu J; each party to bear his/her own costs of the 24 September 2004 hearing.
Cited by 4 cases