Tang Hung on v. Crown Rich Transportation Ltd and Others

HCPI 304/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 304 OF 2006

____________

Before: Hon Saunders J in Chambers

Dates of Written Submissions: 9 & 16 May 2011

Date of Ruling On Costs: 20 May 2011

________________________

RULING ON COSTS

________________________

1.This personal injury action proceeded to trial on 12 and 13 January 2010, with a reserved decision being handed down on 21 January 2010, and a subsequent argument on costs being heard on 10 February 2010, with a reserved ruling being handed down on 12 March 2010.

2.In the costs ruling I ordered that the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants should jointly bear the Plaintiff’s costs of the action up to and including 22 June 2009.  Now a dispute remains as to the apportionment of those costs between the Defendants.

3.The 1^st Defendant says the apportionment should be 50% to be paid by the 1^st Defendant, and 50% to be paid by the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants. The solicitors for the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants seek a ruling on the issue but make no submission as to the apportionment.

4.The costs are to be apportioned 50% to be paid by the 1^st Defendant, and 50% to be paid by the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants.

5.A second dispute is as to the entitlement of the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants to recover costs paid by them to the Plaintiff arising out of the hearing on 10 February 2010. The 1^st Defendant says that there was an order that the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants should pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the hearing on 10 February 2010.  There was no such order.  I note that from the transcript appears that the questions of costs of the costs argument was raised by Mr. Lim, and I indicated that I would make an order nisi.  In fact the ruling did not contain an order nisi.

6.Having reviewed the transcript and the reasons for the various orders made in the ruling, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff’s costs arising out of the hearing on 10 February 2010, should be paid by the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants in the same proportion as for the costs of the action up to and including 22 June 1999.  I accordingly allow the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants to recover from the 1^st Defendant 50% of the Plaintiff’s taxed costs in respect of the hearing of 10 February 2010.  I understand that to amount to the sum of $21,673.10.

7.There will be no order for costs on the costs argument.

Messrs Paul C K Tang & Chiu, for the 1^st Defendant

Messrs Cheng, Yeung & Co, for the 2^nd, 4^th & 5^th Defendants