Dynasty Line Ltd v. Sukamto Sia and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2057/2007 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 February 2009 before Deputy High Court Judge Carlson.
Civil procedure – costs – interlocutory proceedings – injunction – summonses taken out by defendants – whether to maintain original order nisi for plaintiffs' costs in the cause overall or to compartmentalise costs by awarding plaintiffs' costs in respect of individual summonses on which defendants failed – three-day hearing on continuation of injunction – defendants' arguments on summonses not entirely hopeless though ultimately unsuccessful – broad-brush costs order retained as reflecting justice of the situation at this stage – costs of subsequent application on costs – defendants entitled to costs in the cause – application by plaintiff's counsel dismissed – original order nisi maintained – later appeal allowed (see CACV180/2008 and CACV184/2008 dated 25 May 2009).
Legal issues: Approach to costs orders for defendants' failed summonses · Costs of the costs application itself
Outcome: Plaintiff's application for a revised, compartmentalised costs order dismissed; original order nisi (plaintiffs' costs in the cause overall in respect of the summonses) maintained.
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCA2057/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 2057 OF 2007 ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers Date of Hearing: 9 February 2009 Date of Ruling: 9 February 2009 --------------------- R U L I N G -------------------- Plaintiff’s Submission 1.The approach taken by Mr Stock in support of orders for costs between the parties in respect of summonses taken out by the defendants, which in the event failed, is to say that I should reflect the plaintiffs’ successes in respect to those summonses by making orders between the parties and awarding the plaintiffs their costs in any event. He accepts that in respect of the injunction, which is what the plaintiffs essentially had come to do, which was to preserve that injunction, he is content that I should maintain the order nisi, which is more or less I think the conventional order saying plaintiffs’ costs in the cause in respect of a situation where they were successful in having that injunction continued. Defendant’s Submission 2.The defendants submit that my original order, which was one of the plaintiffs’ costs in the cause overall in respect of all the summonses before me, is one that should remain in place and that I should not compartmentalise these summonses in the way that Mr Stock has suggested. The Court 3.I think the approach that I should take in respect of this matter is to ask myself the general question, what was this three day hearing all about, which, in fact, was all about the plaintiff seeking to have the injunction continued with the defendants, as they were perfectly entitled to, taking a number of points, as reflected in their summonses. 4.At the end of the day, the summonses in which the defendants failed to succeed were by no means clear-cut, and the argument was by no means clear-cut. There was much to be said on their behalf, although ultimately they were unsuccessful. I think that is something that perhaps I ought to bear in mind in my general assessment of this application today. So this is not the sort of situation where the defendants had come forward with completely hopeless arguments which were effectively a waste of time and bound to fail. 5.So I have decided, notwithstanding the approach that has been urged upon me by Mr Stock, to retain the order that I made when I handed down the judgment and the order nisi, which seems to me is a broad reflection of what is the justice of the situation at this stage at all events and so, the application by Mr Stock today must be dismissed. Costs of this hearing 6.I think it is unfortunate, that although the system of handing down judgments and making orders nisi is obviously a very convenient one, it does on occasion leave over what can be quite an expensive and time-consuming hearing. At least on this occasion it has not been time-consuming and we have had this argument. It is all part and parcel of the interlocutory contest which relates back to my judgment last year. I am going to say on this occasion that the appropriate order on this application should be the defendants’ costs in the cause.
Alexander Stock, instructed by Hwang & Co., for the Plaintiff Ashley Burns, SC, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the 1st Defendant Chung Lai-ming, of Messrs Deacons, for the 2nd Defendant Appeal allowed: see CACV180/2008 and CACV184/2008 dated 25 May 2009 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2057/2007