Wide Code Industries Ltd v. Sea-air Logistics (Hong Kong) Ltd

HCA 1809/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1809 OF 2009

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

Before : Hon Yam J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 10 August 2011

Date of Judgment : 10 August 2011

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.The document sought by the defendant, including those after the date of the fire are relevant and necessary. It is useful for ascertaining the scope and amount of damages such as whether the plaintiff was still a sole distributor after the fire and whether “old models” were still sold for some time after that date. The document will show whether spare parts of old models were still required for maintenance and what maintenance had been made after the fire; all these are relevant and necessary.

2.In respect of the dispute on the correspondences, the letter is clearly an open letter.                     If not, solicitors should put the “without prejudice” label on it.  However the open letter did not amount to an agreement or admission because the solicitors for the plaintiff stated clearly that they consented to the summons purely because they wanted to save time and costs.  Sadly enough, that was the original intention and the 2 parties were very close in getting an agreement but failed.  Thereafter they are faced with the application before the Master and are now in the appeal.  As a result, enormous amount of costs have been incurred.

3.In conclusion I would dismiss the appeal and I think Mr Wong is asking for costs by summary assessment before me.

[Submissions on costs]

4.Costs to the defendant and they are assessed by summary assessment in the sum of $100,000.

Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Messrs Jackson Ho & Co., for the Plaintiff.

Mr Anson Wong, instructed by Messrs DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the Defendant.