Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 12 January 2006 before Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ, Nazareth NPJ, Millett NPJ.
Civil procedure – costs – judgment silent on costs – parties not heard on costs – sealed orders obtained by appellants without notice to respondents – whether Court of Final Appeal is functus on costs – costs follow the event – security for costs to remain in court. The two appeals, brought by Dragon House Investment Limited and Nam Chun Investment Company Limited against, respectively, the Secretary for Transport and the Director of Lands, were dismissed by judgment handed down on 21 November 2005. The judgment was silent on costs, and the parties were not heard on costs. The same day, the Department of Justice wrote inviting submission to costs. On 24 November 2005, the appellants obtained sealed orders, also silent on costs, without notice to the respondents and without the Registrar's personal knowledge. Written submissions on costs were directed by the Registrar after consulting a Permanent Judge. The court held that it was not functus on the question of costs: since the parties had not been heard on costs, the judgment's silence could not signify anything other than that costs remained to be dealt with after submissions, and the sealed orders, obtained without notice, could not shut out the respondents' right to be heard. As to the second question, the appropriate order as to costs, the court saw no reason why costs should not follow the event, the appeals having been dismissed. The court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeal's costs orders, awarded the respondents the costs of both appeals to the Court of Final Appeal (including the costs of the applications for leave to appeal and the costs of the written submissions on costs), and directed that the money paid in by the appellants by way of security for costs remain in court to be applied towards the respondents' costs as eventually taxed or agreed.
Legal issues: Whether the Court of Final Appeal is functus on the question of costs · Order to be made as to costs
Outcome: The Court of Final Appeal held that it was not functus on the question of costs. The Court of Appeal's costs orders were affirmed, and the respondents were awarded the costs of both appeals to the Court of Final Appeal, including the costs of the applications for leave to appeal and the costs of the written submissions on costs. The security money paid in by the appellants was directed to remain in court to be applied towards the respondents' taxed or agreed costs.