Read the full judgment text of CACV 117/2008 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 June 2010 before Cheung JA, Kwan JA, A Cheung J.
Civil procedure – costs – costs nisi – variation – whether application to vary costs nisi must be made by summons or motion under Order 32 Rule 1 read with Order 42 Rule 5B(6) of the Rules of the High Court – non-compliance treated as curable irregularity under Order 2 Rule 1(1) where no prejudice shown – gross sum costs order under Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b) – civil servant disciplined by severe reprimand and fine – judicial review dismissed – costs of government lawyers – whether taxed on same basis as private practitioners – Legal Officers (Fees and Costs) Rules (Cap. 87A) r.2 and Legal Officers Ordinance (Cap. 87) s.11 – Order 62 of Rules of the High Court – historical abolition of old common law rule that Crown neither paid nor received costs by Crown Proceedings Ordinance (Cap. 300) s.17 – In re Eastwood, deceased [1975] 1 Ch 112 – conventional AB method of taxation – principle of indemnity applied flexibly – uniform approach commends simplicity and avoids unworkable calculation of actual salary and overheads – Hong Kong first instance decisions R v. Lo Sau King, Building Authority v. Tam Chung Ching Denis, Building Authority v. Business Rights Ltd, Wong Yu Cho Rolly v. Ho Chi Sum, and 林哲民經營之日昌電業公司訴曾蔭權 followed – approach confirmed in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Canada – appeal dismissed – applicant to pay 1/4 of respondents' costs of the appeal on provisional basis with gross sum costs order to follow.
Legal issues: Validity of costs variation application made otherwise than by summons · Proper basis for taxation of costs of government lawyers
Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The final costs order of $100,000 below is upheld and the uniform approach of taxing government lawyers' costs on the same basis as private practitioners is confirmed as the correct approach in Hong Kong.
Cites 3 cases