Alan John Muir v. John Robert Lampl and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1172/2004 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 July 2005 before Hon Lam J.
Civil procedure – discontinuance – costs – security for costs – section 168A petition – general rule – plaintiff applying to discontinue after failing to comply with security for costs order – court held no reason to depart from general rule that plaintiff pays costs – discontinuance granted on condition that no fresh action on same subject matter.
Legal issues: Costs upon discontinuance – departure from general rule
Outcome: Plaintiff's application to discontinue granted on terms.
Cited by 11 cases
|
HCA1172/2004 & 2666/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NOS. 1172 & 2666 OF 2004 (CONSOLIDATED) _______________ BETWEEN
_______________ Before: Hon Lam J, in Chambers Date of Hearing: 27 July 2005 Date of Judgment: 27 July 2005 ________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ 1.This is an application by the Plaintiff to discontinue this action, and the summons is dated 20 July 2005, but this case has a longer history. In fact, today’s hearing had also been fixed for the hearing of the Defendants’ summons taken out on 15 December 2004 to strike out certain paragraphs in the statement of claim. 2.There has been an application for security for costs by the Defendants and, on 18 January this year, Master Ho granted an order for security for costs. The Plaintiff has not complied with that order. An extension of time was granted by another master and that was, I think, in June this year. Again, despite that, the Plaintiff has not complied with that order. 3.The Plaintiff seeks to argue today that notwithstanding that he applied to discontinue the action, the general rule that he has to bear the costs consequences should not follow. The reason advanced by Mr Chang is that the discontinuance was due to the fact that the matter will be litigated in another battlefield, namely, in the section 168A petition issued by the Defendants in the present action. 4.Of course, Mr Chang acknowledged the general rule that was quite usefully set out by Kaplan J in the case of Inchroy Credit Corporation v Cheung Man Cheung. On the other hand, it is clear from the judgment of Kaplan J there are situations where the court may depart from the general rule. The question is whether I should exercise my discretion in the present case to do so. 5.At today’s hearing, Mr Chang quite frankly acknowledged one of the considerations that the Plaintiff had taken into account in deciding to discontinue the action is because they do not want to pay the security for costs. 6.The usual consequence of a plaintiff who failed to pay security for costs which has been ordered by the court is that, sooner or later, the action will be dismissed and the Plaintiff will have to bear the costs consequences. 7.Although Master Ho did not make an order to the effect that in default of the payment of the security as ordered the action be dismissed, one can see that this is really coming. There is no way for the Plaintiff to avoid that and, in my view, this is clearly the primary reason why the Plaintiff decided to take out the application for leave to discontinue. 8.In my judgment, bearing in mind the history of the matter, particularly as regards the development since my judgment last December, the Plaintiff, in order to save costs, should have applied to discontinue the action a long time ago. 9.I do not need to repeat the exercise Mr Whitehead performed before me in terms of going through the correspondence between the solicitors. It is quite clear that the Plaintiff should have appreciated a very long time ago that there are paragraphs in the statement of claim that are liable to be struck out and, secondly, there is no point to pursue the present action further and, if he wished to pursue it, he has to put in the security for costs. 10.Against this sort of background, I do not see any good reason to depart from the general rule and I will therefore order that the Plaintiff shall pay the costs of the Defendants in this action and such costs to be taxed if not agreed. 11.As regards the conditions for discontinuing the action, I see no reason why I should not order that the discontinuance should be on condition that the Plaintiff shall not start a fresh action in respect of the same subject matters, save and except that the Plaintiff will be at liberty to canvass matters raised in the present action in the context of the 168A petition which the Defendants had issued or in the cross-petition the Plaintiff may issue with the leave of Kwan J. There is no dispute about that by Mr Whitehead. 12.So this is the order I make.
Mr Jonathan Chang, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the Plaintiff Mr Robert Whitehead, SC and Mr Francis Haddon-Cave, instructed by Leland Chu & Co., for the 1st and 2nd Defendants |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1172/2004