Read the full judgment text of HCCT 13/2010 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 June 2010 before Hon Saunders J.
Costs in arbitration proceedings — application for leave to appeal under s 23(3)(b) Arbitration Ordinance dismissed — Costs initially awarded on party and party basis — Whether indemnity costs appropriate for unsuccessful challenges to arbitration awards — Court endorses approach of Reyes J in A v R, favoring indemnity costs to discourage unmeritorious challenges — Prior authorities on indemnity costs in ordinary actions distinguished as predating Civil Justice Reform and concerning different contexts — Challenge involved interpretation of unusual or 'one-off' clauses requiring high threshold to show tribunal was ‘obviously wrong’; challenge failed as at best remote prospect of success — Court finds challenge was not abuse of process but effectively unmeritorious — Additional factors including late abandonment of grounds, delay tactics, refusal to argue on first hearing date, and delayed payment of award further support indemnity costs — Whether certificate for two counsel justified — Court finds amount, importance, specialised nature, and applicant having instructed leading and junior counsel justify certifying two junior counsel instructed by successful party — Costs ordered on indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel granted.
Legal issues: Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for unsuccessful challenge to an arbitration award · Whether a certificate for two counsel should be granted for costs
Outcome: Wing Hong’s application dismissed; Wing Hong ordered to pay Tin Wo’s costs on an indemnity basis; certificate for two counsel granted.
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 1 case