Huang Jinling v. Apple Daily Ltd and Another
|
HCA 1633/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1633 OF 2012 ____________
____________ AND HCA 1634/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1634 OF 2012 ____________
____________
___________________________ DECISION ON COSTS ___________________________ Introduction 1.This is the decision on the plaintiff’s costs of her application for leave to make a statement in open court (pursuant to RHC Ord 82 r 5) in each of the above two actions (“the leave applications”). 2.The leave applications were unopposed by the defendants (and leave was granted at the end of the hearing on 11 April 2014), but they oppose the applications for the costs of the leave applications to be paid by them. Background 3.The plaintiff commenced the above two actions in September 2012 on the ground she had been defamed by the defendants in articles published respectively in “Apple Daily” on 14 March 2012 (HCA 1633/2012) and in “Next” magazine on 29 March 2012 (HCA 1634/2012). 4.Sanctioned payments were made in both actions and those payments were accepted by the plaintiff respectively in August 2013 (HCA 1633/2012) and in September 2013 (HCA 1634/2012). 5.Besides the above, costs of the above two actions were also agreed:
6.In short, in both actions, the parties agreed to a lump sum payment in “full and final settlement of [the plaintiff’s] claim for costs and disbursements [of the actions]” (the language used by the defendants), or in “full and final settlement of [the plaintiff’s] costs of the Action” (the language used by the plaintiff). Costs of the leave applications 7.It is undisputed that the costs of the leave applications were costs incidental to the costs of the actions, and that:
8.For completeness, further to the agreements on costs of the actions referred to in para 5 above, the cheque for paying the agreed costs in relation to HCA 1633/2012 was sent to the plaintiff on 11 November 2013. 9.The plaintiff first intimated to the defendants she wished to make a statement in open court in both actions on 3 January 2014 (slightly less than two months after the said costs agreement for HCA 1633/2012 and about one month after that for HCA 1634/2012). 10.In view of the above chronology, I agree with the defendants the costs agreements must objectively have been intended to also cover the costs of the leave applications. 11.That the costs of the leave applications must have been within the parties’ contemplation at the time of the costs agreements is reinforced by the fact that counsel who was engaged to draft the statement of claim in both actions, and who also appeared for the plaintiff in the leave applications, was also the counsel who appeared in two earlier applications for leave to make a statement in open court which were referred to in the plaintiff’s skeleton submissions (para 6(1) and (2) thereof):
Conclusion 12.By reason of the above matters, I agree with the defendants that this is not a proper case for the costs of the leave applications to be borne by them. 13.Accordingly, no order as to those costs will be made. Other matters 14.The parties’ written submissions also mentioned various other points. These have not been expressly set out or dealt with above. This is so only because of the need to balance between the length of the decision on costs and its comprehension. It does not mean those other points are thought to be irrelevant (or have been overlooked). To avoid doubt, those other points have also been considered.
Mr Lawrence Ng, instructed by W K To & Co, for the plaintiff in HCA 1633/2012 and HCA 1634/2012 Mr Sunny Chan of Peter Cheung & Co, for the defendants in HCA 1633/2012 and HCA 1634/2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1633/2012