Case Document

100%Judiciary

LDBM 299/2012

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2012

__________________________

BETWEEN

	CHOW CHUI CHUI	1^st Applicant
	LAM KAM CHUNG	2^nd Applicant
	CHU CHIT YAN	3^rd Applicant
	LEUNG CHUNG CHIU	4^th Applicant
	CHAN HING CHUN	5^th Applicant
	HO WAN FUN	6^th Applicant
	THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING	7^th Applicant
	and
	KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	1^st Respondent
	CHAN SING HO	2^nd Respondent
	FIRM HOME PROPERTIES LIMITED	3^rd Respondent
	AU NGO SUET	4^th Respondent (Discontinued)
	CHAINWILL INVESTMENT LIMITED	5^th Respondent
	POLITFORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED	6^th Respondent

__________________________

LDBM 108/2013

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2013

__________________________

BETWEEN

	THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING	Applicant
	and
	CHOW CHUI CHUI	1^st Respondent
	LAM KAM CHUNG	2^nd Respondent
	CHU CHIT YAN	3^rd Respondent
	LEUNG CHUNG CHIU	4^th Respondent
	LAU CHOR SANR	5^th Respondent
	CHAN HING CHUN	6^th Respondent
	HO WAN FUN	7^th Respondent

__________________________

Coram: Deputy Judge Tracy Chan, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal

Date of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie’s Application:
Date of Messrs. Chung & Kwan’s Application:
Date of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie’s Submission:
Date of Messrs. Chung & Kwan’s Submission:
Date of Decision:

15 September 2014
17 September 2014
29 September 2014
3 October 2014
14 October 2014

__________________________________

D E C I S I O N
[Variation of Costs Order Nisi]

____________________________________

1.The Substituting MC Members asked for variation of the costs order nisi made on 4 September 2014 on the 2 actions herein. The issue taken is whether counsel certificate should be granted.

2.The Substituting MC Members asked that there be no certificate for counsel as it was not justified by the complexity or otherwise simplicity of the issues. I could not agree. The main issue raised at the trial had not been determined by any other courts before. There were indeed not much factual disputes. Arguments were mainly on the interpretation of the DMC and Sub-DMCs and the interpretation and application of the BMO. These are legal arguments. I am of the view that it was not unreasonable to brief counsel to assist the court in dealing with these legal arguments.

3.Further, the fact that the solicitors acting for the Substituting MC Members had put in 21 pages for an opening and 38 pages for their closing submissions is good indication that the issues involved are not simple and straight forward.

4.The Substituting Members’ application for variation of the costs order nisi is therefore refused.

5.Costs of this application be to the Former MC Members, to be taxed at District Court Scale with no counsel certificate. This is order nisi to become absolute if no application is made to vary the same within 14 days from date of this decision.

6.Whether costs shall be awarded to the 7^th Applicant under LDBM 299/2012 shall be dealt with upon determination of the application made by it which is to be heard on 29 October 2014.