Read the full judgment text of HCCT 76/2004 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 9 January 2007 before Master de Souza in Chambers.
Costs — Arbitration — Indemnity Principle — Third party payment of costs — Funding arrangement — Maintenance and champerty — Whether Plaintiff liable for costs despite father’s funding — Whether funding arrangement unlawful — The Plaintiff succeeded in removing 1st Defendant as arbitrator and was awarded costs. The Defendants challenged the Bill of Costs claiming the indemnity principle was breached since the Plaintiff’s father (EH) paid costs and contended the funding agreement was champertous. The court reviewed authorities including Gundry v Sainsbury and Adams v London Improved Motor Coach Builders Ltd to confirm that costs paid by a third party do not breach the indemnity principle if the client remains liable. The evidence showed the Plaintiff employed solicitors with knowledge and assent and retained ultimate liability for fees. The funding agreement for other proceedings did not cover the arbitration costs. The court declined to characterize the arrangement as maintenance or champerty, emphasizing close familial relationship and legitimate funding rationale. The applications to dismiss the Bill of Costs were dismissed. An order nisi for costs in favor of the Plaintiff was made, with parties given 14 days to address the court.
Legal issues: Indemnity Principle and third party payment of costs · Maintenance and champerty of funding arrangement
Outcome: 1st and 2nd Defendants’ applications dismissed
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases