Mina Labib Shehata v. Cognis Chemicals (HK) Ltd and Another

HCA113/2004 & 1192/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 113 OF 2004

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

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

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

Before : Mr.Recorder McCoy, SC in Court

Dates of Hearing : 27 February 2008

Date of Judgment : 4 March 2008

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

JUDGMENT  ON  COSTS  AND  INTEREST

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

1.After a 7 day trial, I found that the plaintiff wholly failed against the 2^nd defendant and succeeded against the 1^st defendant only to the extent of $247,936 (which comprises two sum of $97,936 and $150,000).  The sum of $97,936 has now been revised to $95,122.35.

2.The plaintiff claimed $6,752,777.72 as liquidated sums, plus damages and interest.  The plaintiff recovered a paltry 3.67% of the liquidated total which had been sought.

3.Only 2 hours of the 7 day trial were devoted to the 2 issues on which the plaintiff succeeded.  The Taxing Master will doubtless give appropriate weight to these features.

4.The plaintiff applies to vary my original costs order nisi in which I ordered the plaintiff to pay both the 1^st and 2^nd defendants 95% of their costs.

5.On first principles, the plaintiff had of course “succeeded against the 1^st defendant” and costs should follow the event, although here there were plainly discrete claims in the litigation.  The plaintiff only abandoned 7 of his 9 claims against the 1^st defendant during counsel’s opening of the trial.

6.After considering the matter inter-partes I am persuaded that the plaintiff is entitled to the usual order of the costs of the action, only against the 1^st defendant, as expressed in the next sentence.  The plaintiff’s costs are only to reflect the two limited matters on which he succeeded.

7.The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the 2^nd defendant, against which he wholly failed. 

8.As to interest, I order that in accordance with the spirit of s25A Employment Ord Cap 57, as the plaintiff has been out of pocket of the total sum that I found to be owing since the date of the termination of his employment (31 August 2001), interest should be payable from 7 days after that event.  The plaintiff will therefore have interest at 1% over Hong Kong prime rate from 6 September 2001.

9.The plaintiff will have the costs of the hearing to vary the costs order nisi.

10.The transcription error in the last sentence at para [39] of the original judgment is amended to refer to the 1^st defendant.

Mr Jonathan Harris SC, instructed by Messrs Hampton Winter and Glynn, for the Plaintiffs

Mr Paul Carolan, instructed by Messrs Baker & McKenzie, for the 1^st Defendants

Mr Paul Carolan, instructed by Messrs Baker & McKenzie, for the 2^nd Defendants