Read the full judgment text of HCCT 28/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 12 December 2012 before Hon L Chan J.
Costs — indemnity scale — construction and arbitration proceedings — plaintiff filed writ but failed to prosecute actively for over six years — action held in abeyance despite arbitration settlement — explanation for inaction rejected by court — plaintiff’s conduct amounted to abuse of court process — defendant prejudiced — court orders indemnity costs to express strong disapproval. The plaintiff issued proceedings against the defendant related to the Oasis development on Peak Road in 2005, but did not serve the writ promptly or continue the proceedings after close of pleadings in 2006. The defendant applied for a striking out summons in 2012, after years of inactivity. The plaintiff eventually discontinued the action with costs. The defendant applied for costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis, arguing plaintiff’s abuse of process. The court found no reasonable explanation for the long delay, rejected the plaintiff’s medical excuse, and concluded the action was instituted without any will to bring it to trial. The court held that this conduct amounted to an abuse of court procedure prejudicing the defendant, warranting indemnity costs. Plaintiff was ordered to pay costs on the indemnity scale including costs of the application.
Legal issues: Whether costs should be taxed on the indemnity scale
Outcome: Plaintiff ordered to pay costs on indemnity scale to the defendant; costs of the application also on indemnity scale.