Read the full judgment text of HCCT 2/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 21 August 2014 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Procedure — Costs orders — Order nisi — Variation of costs order under O 42 r 5B RHC — Sanctioned offer and indemnity costs — Court clarified that costs order pronounced orally but sealed later constitutes an order nisi. Defendant sought costs on indemnity basis following a sanctioned offer but failed to apply for variation within the 14-day period. Instead, the defendant issued summons to amend and appeal without proper variation application. Plaintiff consented to amendment after summons issued. Court held variation could be applied for within 14 days and correspondence or appeals were improper substitutes. Costs application was granted to amend the order to clarify its nature as order nisi. Costs of application to amend were to be borne by the parties themselves except the defendant had to pay costs from the date plaintiff consented, reflecting defendant’s unnecessary correspondence conduct. Plaintiff’s own costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations. The decision emphasizes correct procedure for varying costs orders and consequences of failure to apply timely for variation. Orders included amendment of costs order and cost allocation to reflect responsible conduct of parties.
Legal issues: Nature and variation of costs order nisi · Costs of application to amend the costs Order
Outcome: Order nisi as to costs confirmed; defendant’s application to amend granted; each party bears own costs of application save defendant to pay costs from 18 July 2014
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case