Ling Wing Fai Billy and Others v. Ling Shui Fai and Others
Read the full judgment text of FACV 11/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 31 May 2013 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Hoffmann NPJ.
Civil procedure – costs – costs following the event – appeal – multiple issues – discount for unsuccessful issue – Housing Ordinance (Cap 283) s.17B – equitable interests – Home Ownership Scheme – alienation – Court of Final Appeal – FACV 11/2011 – appellant succeeded on two of three issues – third issue not decided – respondent sought 50% discount on costs – court held no sufficient ground to depart from usual rule – full costs ordered including leave application and submissions below – certificates for counsel – Hebei Enterprises Ltd v Livasiri & Co – HKSAR v Egan (No 2)
Legal issues: Costs following the event
Outcome: Appeal allowed; respondent ordered to pay costs.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 3 cases
|
FACV No. 11 of 2011 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2011 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO.99 OF 2008) _____________________ Between :
_____________________
__________________________ JUDGMENT ON COSTS __________________________ Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: 1.On 13 November 2012, the Court allowed the two appeals dealt with together,[1] holding that the creation of equitable interests in a Home Ownership Scheme flat resulting from family and friends helping with the purchase monies did not constitute a void “alienation” of the flat under section 17B of the Housing Ordinance (Cap 283). Written submissions as to costs have now been received from the parties in FACV 11/2011. 2.The appellant seeks the costs here and below as costs following the event. The respondent accepts that she should bear the costs at first instance and in the Court of Appeal but submits that 50% of the costs in this Court should be discounted because the appellant raised three issues on the appeal and succeeded only on the first two, the Court not finding it necessary to deal with the third (which the respondent describes as unnecessary or unarguable). The respondent draws attention to the number of pages in the written cases and the number of authorities devoted to that third issue. 3.We do not consider the abovementioned complaint a sufficient ground for departing from the usual rule that costs should follow the event. We therefore order that the respondent pay to the appellant the costs of the proceedings in this Court, including the costs of the leave application and of the present submissions; as well as the costs in the Courts below. The appellant has asked variously for certificates for one and two counsel to be granted. It is unnecessary to ask for a certificate for two counsel in this Court, as explained in Hebei Enterprises Ltd v Livasiri & Co.[2]
Written submissions by Mr Denis Chang SC and Mr Earl Deng instructed by Rowdget W Young & Co for the Appellant Written submissions by Ms Lisa KY Wong SC and Mr Keith Lam instructed by Chong, So & Co for the Respondent |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case