鄧有強 v. 鄧才有

HCA 4/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 4 OF 2011

_____________

_____________

________________________________

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

________________________________

1.On 3 April 2014, I handed down my Reasons for Decision. In paragraph 19 of those Reasons, I indicated that I was contemplating the making of a wasted costs order to disallow the costs occasioned by the recusal application as between the solicitors of both parties and their respective client. I also indicated that I was satisfied pursuant to RHC Order 62, rule 8B(1)(a) that (1) there were sufficient materials which would be likely to lead to a wasted costs order being made and (2) the wasted costs proceedings would be justified notwithstanding the likely costs involved. In accordance with RHC Order 62, rule 8B(1)(b), I made a direction that the parties’ solicitors could file written submissions within 7 days to show cause as to why a wasted costs order should not be made.

2.Both parties’ solicitors have now informed the Court that they have no submissions to make in relation to the proposed wasted costs order. 

3.I refer to my Reasons for Decision dated 3 April 2014 for the background leading to the making of the recusal application.  In the circumstances of this case, I consider that it is right to make a wasted costs order to disallow the costs occasioned by the recusal application as between the solicitors of both parties and their respective client, and so order.

Messrs Edward Lau, Wong & Lou, for the plaintiff

Messrs Paul W Tse, for the defendant