Liu Chun Kow Joe v. Lee Sau Wing
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 399/2001 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 July 2007.
1. I have before me an argument as to costs. The costs in this case is high because this case has taken a long time. It went for some 10 trial day before me resulting in a judgment I gave earlier this year. Having lived with the case for that considerable timing, I have no doubt that in the exercise of my discretion I ought to take into account of the substantial failure by the plaintiff on many aspects.
Cites 1 case
|
HCPI 399/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 399 OF 2001 ------------------------- BETWEEN
------------------------- Before : Hon Waung J in Chambers Dates of Hearing : 26 July 2007 Date of Judgment : 26 July 2007 ----------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- 1.I have before me an argument as to costs. The costs in this case is high because this case has taken a long time. It went for some 10 trial day before me resulting in a judgment I gave earlier this year. Having lived with the case for that considerable timing, I have no doubt that in the exercise of my discretion I ought to take into account of the substantial failure by the plaintiff on many aspects. 2.I have been urged by Mr Sakhrani not to make the unusual order as he put it, in the Personal Injuries List of depriving the plaintiff who has recovered substantial sum, of the full costs of the Action. He said that either I should not be taking anything off or I should only take off a very small percentage. 3.I am of course not familiar with the practice in the Personal Injuries List, I can only speak of my experience as a judge generally in the High Court. It seems to me that each case must be decided on the merits before the court. If one looks at my judgment where I repeatedly described the claim as pitched being extraordinarily high, being fanciful, being excessive and the plaintiff’s evidence being unreliable, it would not be doing justice to the defendant if I do not, in my decision on costs, reflect this. It seems to me, having regard overall to all various matters that I am alive to, that the plaintiff should only get 70% of the costs of the action. And this is my decision. 4.So far as the matter of whether the costs should be on a High Court scale or District Court scale, I make it very clear to Mr Wright that it should be on a High Court scale. It seems to me that this is a matter, having with special regard to the way it had been brought about, that the plaintiff was justified in bringing it and maintaining it in the High Court. I believe the length of time this Action has taken reflects this.
Mr Ashok K. Sakrani, instructed by Messrs Munros, for the Plaintiff Mr John Wright and Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Messrs Ip Kwan & Co., for the Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 399/2001