Read the full judgment text of HCCT 122/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 8 November 2007 before Mr Recorder Rimsky Yuen, SC in Chambers.
Costs — Late Disclosure of Evidence — Variation of Order Nisi — Joint Venture Agreement — Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — The Plaintiff’s claim based on an oral or implied joint venture agreement was dismissed. Shortly before trial, the Defendant disclosed that Mr Craft was not present in Hong Kong on the critical date, undermining the oral JVA claim. The Plaintiff applied to vary the costs order to recover costs for a substantial period due to the Defendant's late disclosure constituting improper conduct. The Court considered whether the delay justified departure from the usual principle that costs follow the event. It held that there was no evidence that earlier disclosure would have led to a materially different course of litigation, especially given the alternative implied JVA claim. The delay was not deliberate concealment; the Plaintiff was granted an adjournment and costs for that delay. Accordingly, the application to vary costs was dismissed, the Order nisi was confirmed and made absolute, and costs of the application were awarded against the Plaintiff.
Legal issues: Costs order variation application based on delayed evidence disclosure
Outcome: Dismissal of Plaintiff’s application to vary Order nisi as to costs; Order nisi confirmed and made absolute
Cited by 11 cases