Montrio Ltd and Another v. Tse Ping Shun David

HCA757/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.757 OF 2009

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers

Dates of Written Submissions on Costs : 30 December 2011, 5 January, 2 and 6 February 2012

Date of Decision on Costs : 17 February 2012

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

CORRIGENDA

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

In the Decision on Costs of the above case dated 17 February 2012, the following corrections are to be made: -

1.  Paragraph 30, the second sentence, delete “three questions relating to”.

2.  Paragraph 30, lines J-N be amended to read “… The master adjourned the   summons with costs in the cause. The summons was heard by Sakhrani J at the case management conference on 21 September 2010. The plaintiffs formulated three questions for cross-examining Mr Ho. Mr Kenny Lin, for the defendant, indicated to the judge that he had no objection to the application. The judge then allowed the plaintiffs’ application. He further ordered costs be in the cause. At the pre-trial review before me on 26 July 2011, Mr Pun asked leave to examine Mr Ho on matters arising from the cross-examination by the plaintiffs. I granted him leave to do so. I also ordered costs be in the cause. At the trial…”.

3.  Paragraph 31 be amended to read “In my view, the three costs orders made it plain that the costs of the plaintiffs’ application to cross-examine Mr Ho are to be in the cause. Since the plaintiffs had succeeded at trial, they are entitled to the costs of their application to cross-examine Mr Ho. Further what Mr Pun did at the pre-trial review is inconsistent with his submission in paragraph 29 above, which I reject.”.

Dated this 2^nd day of March 2012.