Read the full judgment text of HCCT 7/2005 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 7 October 2005 before Hon A Cheung J.
Costs — Arbitration — Costs order variation — Appeal against arbitrator’s award on costs — Court’s jurisdiction to remit costs question to arbitrator — Costs follow the event principle — Exceptional circumstances required to depart from normal rule — Applicant’s unilateral error leading to court relief — Costs split between parties in light of vigorous opposition and rejected arguments — Application for two counsel certificate refused. Chinney Construction Company Limited failed to request the arbitrator to reserve costs question which necessitated court intervention; court granted leave to appeal and remitted costs question. Chinney applied to vary costs order; Po Kwong applied for two counsel certificate. Court held that Chinney must bear costs related to initial error and appeal application, but additional costs arising from Po Kwong’s vigorous opposition which was ultimately rejected should be borne by Po Kwong. Court ordered Chinney to pay 25% of hearing costs and initial costs to Po Kwong and Po Kwong to pay 75% of hearing costs to Chinney. The two counsel certificate application by Po Kwong was refused. Costs to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal issues: Costs order variation · 是否批准两名律师出庭证书申请
Outcome: 法院判定Chinney支付25%的听证费用及全部初期费用，Po Kwong支付75%的听证费用；驳回Po Kwong申请两名律师出庭证书请求。
Cites 3 cases