Tai Fook Futures Ltd v. Cheung Moon Hoi Jeff
Read the full judgment text of CACV 103/2005 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 February 2007 before Yuen JA, Kwan J.
Civil procedure – appeal – costs – variation of costs order nisi – two summonses seeking four different orders – defendant unrepresented – order nisi that defendant bear costs of appeal – defendant subsequently located Reuters trade recap vindicating his summons – whether defendant should bear full costs or reduced proportion – amendment to summons suggested by court – undertaking by plaintiff given only at hearing – original order not grounded in rules of court – order nisi varied to defendant paying 2/3 of costs of appeal
Legal issues: Variation of costs order nisi
Outcome: Order nisi varied; the defendant is ordered to pay 2/3 of the costs of the appeal.
Cited by 11 cases
|
CACV 103/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2005 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA 9932 OF 1999) ______________________ BETWEEN:
______________________ Before : Hon. Yuen JA and Hon Kwan J in Court Date of hearing : 17 January 2007 Date of decision : 6 February 2007 ---------------- DECISION ---------------- Hon. Yuen JA: 1.The Defendant has asked this court to vary the costs order nisi given on 23 October 2006. The order nisi was that the Defendant bear the costs of this appeal. 2.On 19 October 2006 we had heard the Defendant’s appeals from a decision of Chu J given on 7 March 2005 dismissing two summonses issued by the Defendant in February and March 2005. The summonses were for 4 different orders, as the 2nd summons was divided into 3 parts. 3.On 23 October 2006 we gave judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal but -
4.We gave an order nisi that the costs of the appeal be borne by the Defendant. The Defendant has asked us to vary the order on the grounds set out in his affirmation filed on 12 January 2007. In his affirmation, the Defendant disclosed the fact that the Plaintiff has now located the Reuters trade recap which apparently had been in the possession of Ms Mak who left the Plaintiff in 2000, in effect vindicating his summons. He also submitted that although the original order he sought was unconventional, he was not legally represented and should not be penalized for not using what he calls "legal jargon". 5.Mr Hui counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff was successful in the main, and that the order regarding the trade recap was made only after an amendment suggested by the court at the hearing. He submitted that given the 4 parts of the two summonses under appeal, the Plaintiff’s costs should be reduced by only 1/4 to reflect the part on which the Defendant was successful. 6.We have taken into account, amongst other things, the fact that the order regarding the trade recap was made only after an amendment suggested by the court. It is not, as the Defendant argues, a matter of an unrepresented litigant not knowing legal language. It was a matter of the substance of the order he sought originally, which would not have been granted as it was not grounded in the rules of court. We have however also taken into consideration the fact that the undertaking given by the Plaintiff regarding the SFC materials was only given at the hearing of the appeal. After considering both parties’ submissions, we take the view that the order nisi should be varied such that the Defendant be ordered to pay 2/3 of the costs of the appeal. Hon Kwan J: 7.I agree.
The Defendant (Appellant) in person, present Mr Norman Hui instructed by T.S. Tong & Co for the Plaintiff (Respondent) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 103/2005