Csav Group (Hong Kong) Ltd and Another v. Jamshed Safdar

Read the full judgment text of CACV 133/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 August 2006.

1. Following the delivery of judgment in this matter on 28 April 2006, the defendant raised the matter of two costs orders made in the court below on 29 March 2006.  The plaintiffs subsequently indicated that they would be prepared to accept that those orders should be varied to defendant’s costs in the cause.  Subsequently, at the invitation of the court, both parties indicated in writing that they agreed that that matter of costs should be dealt with by written submissions.

Cited by 2 cases

Case No.CACV 133/2006
Court
Court of Appeal
Date11 Aug 2006
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV133/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 586 OF 2006)

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

BETWEEN

  CSAV GROUP (HONG KONG) LIMITED
(formerly NORASIA SERVICES (HKG) LTD)
1st Plaintiff
  NORASIA CONTAINER LINES LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and  
  JAMSHED SAFDAR Defendant

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

Before : Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA

Date of Handing Down Ruling : 11 August 2006

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

RULING ON COSTS

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

1.Following the delivery of judgment in this matter on 28 April 2006, the defendant raised the matter of two costs orders made in the court below on 29 March 2006.  The plaintiffs subsequently indicated that they would be prepared to accept that those orders should be varied to defendant’s costs in the cause.  Subsequently, at the invitation of the court, both parties indicated in writing that they agreed that that matter of costs should be dealt with by written submissions.

2.Having considered the written submissions, we are of the view that the correct order in respect of the two orders made on 29 March 2006 should be that they should be varied to defendant’s costs in the cause.  In our view, the substance of the applications heard on 29 March 2006 was to give further directions in respect of the order dated 22 March 2006.  Since that order has been varied to defendant’s costs in the cause it would appear appropriate to vary these costs orders likewise.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal

Written submissions on costs by Messrs Holman, Fenwick & Willan, for the Plaintiffs/Respondents

Written submissions on costs by Messrs Clyde & Co., for the Defendant/Appellant

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 133/2006