Wat Kwing Lok v. The Kowloon Motor Bus Co (1933) Ltd

HCPI 936/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 936 OF 2005

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 11 January 2008

Date of Decision : 11 January 2008

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

1.Having heard the submissions and considered the factors that have been drawn to my attention that I have to take into account as set out at marginal note 62/App/48 I am satisfied that it was necessary and proper to engage two counsel for the preparation and trial of this case. 

2.Although the legal principles were not in dispute at the trial, the defendant could not be confident prior to trial that the principles would be accepted by the plaintiff.  It was only after extensive research had been done in different jurisdictions that the matter was presented on the authorities, and at trial the legal principles were not disputed. 

3.The quantum was agreed at trial but Mr Leung is right to draw my attention to the fact that on the plaintiff’s pleaded case it was a substantial claim for damages.  

4.The legal principles and the importance of the case to the defendant cannot be underestimated since it is a franchised public bus company.  Although at trial many of the issues had been narrowed, this does not detract from the fact that it was necessary and proper, in my view, to instruct two counsel to appear at the trial and to be involved in the preparation for the trial. 

5.In the circumstances I would vary the costs order nisi by certifying that the case is fit for two counsel.  I so order.

Mr John Clancey of M/s Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners for the Plaintiff

Mr Raymond Leung instructed by M/s Hastings & Co. for the Defendant