Read the full judgment text of HCCT 42/2008 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 March 2011 before Hon Saunders J.
Costs — Arbitration proceedings — Admissibility of foreign legal opinions — Costs associated with inadmissible evidence — Court’s jurisdiction to correct errors in unsealed decisions — Discretion of taxing master on consequential costs — Leave to appeal refused. This case concerns a costs dispute arising from an arbitration award contested between Top Bagage International and Wistar Enterprises Limited. A French legal opinion filed by the respondent was held inadmissible as it was not properly exhibited to the affidavit but filed separately, leading to refusal of costs associated with it. The court exercised its jurisdiction to correct the earlier costs decision accordingly. The court further held that costs for subsequent procedural steps following the French legal opinion should be determined by the taxing master in his discretion. An application for leave to appeal against the costs decision by the respondent’s director was withdrawn after explanation by the court. No order was made as to costs arising from the leave application or the costs variation application. Consequently, Wistar was awarded costs incidental to the summons but no costs in respect of the French legal opinion, affirming the importance of proper procedural compliance for admissibility and associated costs outcomes.
Legal issues: Costs related to French legal opinion
Outcome: Wistar entitled to costs incidental to the summons but no costs allowed for the French legal opinion; leave to appeal refused; no order as to costs on applications.
Cited by 2 cases