Mo Jianmei v. Director of Immigration

HCAL87/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 87 OF 2004

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Chu J in Chambers

Date of submissions : 3 & 7 September 2005

Date of decision : 9 September 2005

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

DECISION ON COSTS

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

1.On 23 August 2005, I handed down the Judgment in these proceedings where by the applicant’s application for judicial review against the Removal Order issued by the Respondent on 17 December 1999 is dismissed. 

2.In the Judgment, I made an order nisi that the applicant pays the respondent the costs of the application, and that the applicant’s own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.. 

3.By letter dated 3 September 2005, the applicant, through her solicitors, applies to vary the costs order nisi to the extent that there be no order as to costs between the applicant and the respondent.  The letter points out that the present case is very similar in nature to the Concession Policy claim cases that form part of the Ng Siu Tung & Others v. Director of Immigration case.  Irrespective of the outcome of the applications, the court had consistently ordered in those cases that there be no order as to costs between the parties.

4.By letter dated 7 September 2005, Mr Ho for the respondent indicates that the respondent has no submission to make on the matters raised in the letter from the applicant’s solicitors.

5.Costs is a matter of court’s discretion and the exercise of the discretion depends on the circumstances of individual cases.  However, the court’s practice in similar cases is a relevant consideration in the exercise of the discretion.  The history of the case and the parties’ conduct are also relevant considerations.  

6.In the present case, having regard to the matters raised in the letter from the applicant’s solicitors, and considering also that the applicant is legally aided and the matter had previously been considered by the Court of Appeal: see paragraph 10 of the Judgment dated 23 August 2005, I accept that it is appropriate to make no order as to the costs between the applicant and the respondent.

7.Accordingly, I allow the applicant’s application.  The costs order nisi is varied to the extent that there be no order as to the costs of the application between the applicant and the respondent.

Messrs Barnes & Daly for the applicant.

Mr Dick Ho, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice for the respondent.