Chan Shun Kei t/a Chan Shun Kei Construction Works v. Hong Kong Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd (Formerly Known As Hong Kong Construction (Holdings) Ltd)
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 2/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 July 2014 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Court of First Instance—discretionary costs orders—application for leave to appeal costs order—principles for appellate interference—court will only interfere if discretion wrongly exercised or on false principle—court affirmed trial judge’s reasoning on costs considering amounts claimed, recovered, and parties' conduct—leave refused for lack of reasonable prospects of success—costs to respondent. Plaintiff CHAN SHUN KEI trading as CHAN SHUN KEI CONSTRUCTION WORKS sought to appeal costs order made against it in construction proceedings against defendant HONG KONG CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LIMITED. Leave to appeal was declined as the trial judge exercised discretion judicially and his reasons were adequately set out and supported by authorities. This judgment underscores the limited circumstances in which appellate courts will intervene in costs orders and reiterates adherence to established case law. Outcome: leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal issues: Costs order discretion and appellate intervention
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused with costs
Cites 4 cases
|
HCCT 2/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 2 OF 2011 ____________
_____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.Leave to appeal will only be granted if the party seeking leave can establish that the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success. In respect of an appeal against costs, which are within the discretion of the court, it is trite that the Court of Appeal will only intervene if it can be shown that the judge failed to exercise his discretion, or had exercised his discretion upon a false principle, or did not exercise it judicially, or the exercise of discretion was demonstrably flawed (Choy Yee Chun (PR of the estate of Chan Pui Yiu) v Bond Star Development Ltd [1997] HKLRD 1327. 2.I am not satisfied that it has been shown that in making the costs order as to liability and quantum, the judge had erred in principles, or had taken into account irrelevant matters, or had failed to consider relevant matters, or that the discretion was exercised under a mistake of law or a mistake as to facts. The general rule is that costs should follow the event, but it is trite that the court may depart from such general rule where the circumstances justify such exceptional course (Mariner International Hotels Ltd v Atlas Ltd (No 2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 246). The judge in this case considered (as he was entitled to do) the amount originally claimed by the plaintiff, the amount actually recovered, the conduct of the parties leading up to the trial on quantum, and made the order which he did. 3.As Woo JA observed in Ho Shu Kwong v Chiang Chun Yuan [2002] 3 HKLRD 419, the trial judge has the advantage of personal experience of the proceedings and is in a better position than the Court of Appeal to assess the conduct of the parties and the way in which they pursued their case. The reasons for the costs orders made by the learned judge are adequately set out in paragraphs 87-93 of the Judgment of 7 April 2014. 4.I consider that the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success, and refuse leave with costs.
Mr Eric Chung, instructed by Robin Bridge & John Liu (assigned by the Director of Legal Aid), for the plaintiff Mr Osmond Lam, instructed by Mayer Brown JSM, for the defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 2/2011