Read the full judgment text of HCCT 68/2001 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 20 November 2004 before Hon Reyes J.
Construction and arbitration proceedings — Costs orders — Insolvency of a defendant impacting cost recovery — Liability for costs following event — Whether costs of a non-participatory insolvent defendant should fall on other defendants — Whether a party wrongly sued must bear their own costs — The court adheres to the principle that costs follow the event and rejects passing MML’s insolvency costs to GWA. Linfield sought an order that GWA’s costs be paid by MML or that GWA be liable for costs of other parties (PCL and BHP). MML’s insolvency means recovery from it is unlikely; however, the court finds GWA was wrongly sued and must bear own costs. GWA offered a substantial settlement to Linfield before trial which was not accepted. The court also clarifies cost recovery issues between Linfield, PCL, BHP, and GWA in relation to contribution proceedings and allows Linfield to indemnify GWA accordingly. Procedural difficulties caused by arbitration agreements and forum non-unanimity do not affect the costs order. The court refuses to reserve the question of costs to later, deciding cost liabilities now. Outcome: costs order from 3 September 2004 mostly confirmed, with variations ensuring Linfield recovers from MML its own and certain other costs, GWA to indemnify PCL’s contribution costs, and costs questions related to arbitration proceedings remain open. No unjust outcomes found in the cost distribution.
Legal issues: Costs allocation following MML insolvency · Clarification on recovery of PCL’s and BHP’s costs · Forum and procedural arrangements causing increased costs · Whether it is appropriate to reserve the costs question
Outcome: Costs order largely confirmed in favor of original judgment with minor variations.
Cited by 6 cases