Rmbsa Corporate Services Ltd and Another v. Secretary for Justice and Another

CACV 96/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1412 OF 2008)

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

----------------------   

Before: Hon Tang VP and Cheung JA in Chambers

Date of Decision on Costs: 26 August 2009

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

DECISION ON COSTS

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

Hon Tang VP (giving the decision on costs of the Court):

1.When allowing the appeal on 4 June 2009 we ordered that:

“22.   … the costs of the appeal be borne by the defendants, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.  As for the costs of the hearing before Wright J on 31 March 2009, we order nisi that they be in the cause of the action.”

2.By summons dated 16 June 2009, the plaintiffs requested that the costs order be amended such that the costs of the appeal as well as the costs of the defendants’ application below should be taxed and paid forthwith.

3.We have had the benefit of written submissions from the parties.

4.The defendants agree that the costs of the appeal should be taxed and paid forthwith.  The parties have proceeded on the basis that an express order to that effect is required because of the new O. 62 r. 9D(1) and (2).  Proceeding on that basis, but without deciding the issue, we are prepared so to order.

5.As for the costs below, we believe that the proceedings before Wright J, which resulted in the order under appeal was in the nature of a directions hearing.  That was why although Wright J decided against the plaintiffs he ordered that costs should be in the cause of the action.  We believe the proper order is that those costs should remain in the cause of the action and we now so order.