Sang Hing Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Ltd v. Arnhold & Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 3891/2003 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 January 2005.
1. On 20 May 2004 there were two summonses heard before Reyes J. The first summons was issued by the Defendant to this action on 18 November 2003 and it was a summons for specific discovery of a certain document. The second summons was issued on 27 January 2004 also by the Defendant and it was a summons for the stay of this action on the ground that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement to submit the subject matter of this action to arbitration.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 3891/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 3891 OF 2003 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Recorder Edward Chan, SC in Chambers Date of Hearing: 24 January 2005 Date of Decision: 29 January 2005 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 20 May 2004 there were two summonses heard before Reyes J. The first summons was issued by the Defendant to this action on 18 November 2003 and it was a summons for specific discovery of a certain document. The second summons was issued on 27 January 2004 also by the Defendant and it was a summons for the stay of this action on the ground that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement to submit the subject matter of this action to arbitration. 2.Reyes J heard the summons for discovery first. He made an order that “the cost of the Defendant’s application by way of summons filed on 18 November 2003 to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed in any event”. He did not have to make any order for specific discovery because by 20 May 2004, the Plaintiff had already supplied the document requested to the Defendant. Thus all that the Judge needed to deal with was the cost of the application and the summons. He then heard the summons for stay of the proceedings. He ordered that “all the proceedings in this action be stayed”. As to the cost of the application for stay, Reyes J ordered that “cost of the Defendant’s application by way of summons filed on 27 January 2004 be to the Defendant payable forthwith to be taxed if not agreed.” 3.On 17 June 2004 there was an appointment for the taxation of the bills for the summons of 18 November 2003 and also the summons of 27 January 2004. Eventually the taxation came before Mr. Registrar C Chan on 30 September 2004. After hearing the parties on 30 September 2004, on 16 November 2004 Mr. Registtrar Chan handed down his decision. He ruled that because the cost order in relation to the summons of 18 November 2003 was that the Defendant was awarded cost “in any event”, he “did not consider it proper to tax the costs attributable to those items in the bill relating to the cost order resulting from the Defendant’s application by way of summons filed on 18 November 2003.” 4.On 29 December 2004 the Defendant asked for leave to file an application to review. The parties were not agreed as to whether there was power on the part of the Registrar to review his decision. On 3 January 2005, the parties filed a consent summons to withdraw that application to review. On 5 January 2005, the Defendant filed a summons to ask for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Mr. Registrar C Chan of 16 November 2004. 5.In theory the application before me today is just for leave to appeal out of time. However before me, the parties have not addressed me on any issue on the question of leave, but instead both parties through their counsel addressed me on the merits of the appeal. 6.There is no suggestion that the Plaintiff would in any way be prejudiced by the delay in lodging this appeal. 7.In the circumstances, I will give leave to the Defendant to appeal out of time and as I have also heard the parties fully on the merits of the appeal, I also decide that the hearing before me should be treated as the hearing of the appeal proper too. 8.Before I come to consider the merits of the appeal, I would like to deal with a question of law on the approach that I should adopt in considering this appeal. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this appeal should be considered as an appeal against the discretion of the Master on cost and as such the Judge hearing an appeal on cost should not disturb the decision of the Master unless it could be shown that the Master was wrong. He referred me to the head note of decision of Hoddle v CCF Construction Ltd. [1992] 2 All E.R. 550 which said:
9.I do not consider that the decision of Hoddle is relevant to the issue that I have to deal with. What I am concerned with is whether the Registrar was correct in his ruling on the meaning and effect of the cost order of Reyes J. It is not a case where the Master has exercised his discretion to make a cost order which is now being challenged. Accordingly I am of the view that I should apply the the well established principle that in an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the Master to the Judge, the appeal is by way of re-hearing and the Judge is free to exercise his own discretion and is at liberty to come to a different conclusion from that of the master even though the master has not been shown to have erred in principle or in law. 10.The crux of the matter is the meaning and effect of the cost order of Reyes J. 11.“Cost in any event” has a well established meaning. 12.In J. T. Stratford & Son Ltd. v Lindley [1969] 1 WLR 1547, Lord Denning M.R. said (at 1553B):
13.At paragraph 62/3/6(3) of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2004, it is stated that :
Thus from the commentary, a cost in any event order would be taxable in 2 circumstances viz (a) when the “event” is finally settled or decided or (b) when there is no likelihood of any further order being made in the action. 14.The commentary refers to the situation of the case being finally decided or settled. It does not mean that there cannot be an “event” for the purpose of the taxation of this kind of cost order unless there is a settlement of the action or an adjudication on the merits of the action in the sense that there is a judgment in favour of one party or another. 15.A case may come to an end by the Court deciding on the merits in favour of a party to the action. This would result in a judgment in favour of that party. However a case may equally come to an end with the action being struck out or stayed or with a declaration under Order 12 rule 8(1) that the Court has no jurisdiction over the defendant in respect of the subject matter of the claim. The same is true when the action is settled. The action may be settled with a consent order or judgment. On the other hand, an action may be settled by a Tomlin order in which case, the action is stayed with liberty to apply for the purpose of carrying out the terms of settlement reached between the parties. Likewise in some instances, after the commencement of an action by a plaintiff, a defendant may apply to have the action stayed on various grounds. The existence of an arbitration agreement is merely one of the instances for application for stay of the action. Other grounds for stay of the action may include forum non conveniens. In all these instances where the action is stayed, the underlying dispute between the parties has not been resolved. It would only be determined by another forum or tribunal. In my view where an action is stayed, the action should be considered as having come to an end for the purpose of deciding whether there is an “event” for the taxation of an order for “cost in any event”. In as much as a judgment in an action may be set aside on appeal or on the ground of fraud, the mere existence of a possibility that a stay may be lifted on some special grounds does not mean that the action stayed is still on going so that an order for “cost in any event” should not be taxed. 16.Molnlycke AB and another v Procter & Gamble Limited (No. 6) [1993] F.S.R. 154 is a decision in support of the proposition that the fact that there may still be steps to be taken or further orders to be made in an action does not per se mean that there could not be any conclusion of the cause or matter for the purpose of taxation of cost. This case was decided on the Rules of Supreme Court 1965 of England. Under Order 62 rule 8 of the Rules of Supreme Court 1965, it was provided that:
In Molnlycke case, the action had been tried and the court gave judgment to the plaintiff with a direction that there be enquiry as to damages. The court further ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the action and counterclaim and such cost to be taxed on certain basis. The plaintiff wished to have the cost taxed without waiting for the enquiry as to damages. The question was whether the enquiry as to damages would mean that the cause or matter in which the proceedings arose had not been concluded. Morritt J held that the cause or matter had been concluded. The enquiry as to damages merely arose under the judgment. 17.In the present case, the Plaintiff objected to taxation on the ground that although the proceedings had been stayed by the order of Reyes J, it is still possible that some applications under the Arbitration Ordinance would be made to the Court. Examples of such application are applications under section 2GC (reliefs including security for costs, inspection and taking samples of the property etc, and interim injunction order etc); section 2GG (enforcement of the arbitral award); section 23(2) (appeal against arbitral award); section 23A (referral to the court for decision on point of law). Furthermore the Court is also empowered to grant relief where the arbitrator is not impartial or the dispute involves question of fraud. I accept that it is possible that in the future the court may be asked to make various kinds of orders. However I do not think that it would mean that the cause or matter sued upon by the Plaintiff in the writ of this action had not been disposed of by the Reyes J’s order staying the proceedings. Under the order to stay, the underlying merits and disputes between the parties would have to be determined by an arbitrator in pursuance of the arbitration agreement. Unless the stay order is lifted, there is no prospect that the merit of the Plaintiff’s claim in this action would be determined or adjudicated by the Court. The claim in this action is thus concluded. 18.I am also satisfied that it must be the intention of Reyes J when he made the order giving the Defendant cost in any event in relation to the discovery application, that the Defendant should be able to tax the cost if the action should be stayed. At that time, the Judge had not adjudicated on the application for stay. If he should refuse to stay the proceedings, the action must go on and the Defendant would have to wait until the determination of the merits of the claim or a settlement of the action before they could ask for taxation of the cost. However in the end, the Judge also ordered a stay of the action. It would be very strange that the Judge would give the Defendant the cost of the application for stay so that the Defendant could proceed to taxation at once and yet he should desire that the cost for the discovery should not be taxed until a point of time highly uncertain in the future. In this respect it is worthwhile to point out that while the court has an inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own proceedings so that the court could out of its own initiative strike out an action for want of prosecution, the court would not have such inherent power to regulate the progress of arbitration. 19.Further I am also satisfied that there should be taxation of the cost order in question on the ground that there is no likelihood of any further order in this action. There is no appeal against the order for stay. Since the order of Reyes J made about 8 months ago, there is no active step taken in the arbitration proceedings. The Plaintiff had not put in any evidence to suggest that it is likely that there would be any further steps taken in this action or any application under this action for any relief. My view that there is no likelihood of any further order being made in this action does not mean that it is not possible to have any further order made in this action. 20.I would like to add that I do not see any sense of there being 2 taxations, one in respect of the cost for the stay application and one in respect of the cost of the discovery. The applications were heard on the same day by the same Judge. If the result of this appeal would depend on any exercise of discretion, I could only see that the discretion should be exercise in one way – to direct that the Defendant may apply for the taxation of the cost of the discovery application now so that the taxation of the cost of the stay application and the discovery application could take place together. 21.Accordingly I would allow the appeal. As to the cost of the appeal, the parties were in broad agreement that it should follow the event. However, it appears that the parties had forgotten that this appeal was possible only if I would grant leave to appeal out of time. As to the leave to appeal out of time, the Defendant being the party asking for the indulgence of the Court would have to pay the cost of the application. Hence it would appear that an appearance before me would be inevitable even though the parties had taken the sensible approach and had not spent any time in any argument on leave. Taking all these circumstances into account I will make an order nisi that the Plaintiff is to pay 90% of the Defendant’s cost of this appeal (including the application for leave to appeal) to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Herbert Y F Leung, instructed by Messrs Ng & Co., for the Plaintiff Mr Victor Dawes, instructed by Messrs Peter Lau & Co., for the Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 3891/2003