BabelCite

Indian Overseas Bank v. Vee Pee Global Ltd and Otherd

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2114/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 December 2014.

1. Having considered the written submissions in relation to the basis of costs I have concluded that the usual order for costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party and party basis will apply.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCMP 2114/2011
Court
High Court CFI
Date12 Dec 2014
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 2114/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2114 OF 2011

________________________

  IN THE MATTER OF the property known as ALL THOSE 6 equal undivided 170th parts or shares of and in ALL THAT piece or parcel of ground registered in the Land Registry as Kowloon Inland Lot No. 10349 and of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon now known as “HART HOUSE” (赫德大廈) Nos 12 and 14 Hart Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“the said Building”) TOGETHER with the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy ALL THAT the whole 17th floor including the Filing Room & the Corresponding Part of Flat Roof adjacent thereto of the said Building
  and
  IN THE MATTER OF a Legal Charge/Charge made on the 12th day of April 2007 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No 07051101370168 on the 11th day of May 2007

____________________

BETWEEN  
  INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Plaintiff
  and  
  VEE PEE GLOBAL LIMITED 1st Defendant
  PREM KHEMCHAND LALWANI 2nd Defendant
  MAYA PREM LALWANI 3rd Defendant

____________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Seagroatt in Chambers
Date of Decision on Costs: 12 December 2014

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.Having considered the written submissions in relation to the basis of costs I have concluded that the usual order for costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party and party basis will apply.

2.Dealing with the three grounds advanced by the plaintiff for a higher basis I make the following comments.

3.The fact that the defence was so lacking in credibility is not an unusual feature in such cases.  In some respects the fact that a case turns on credibility of the prime witnesses makes it an easier case to prepare and try. Therefore it is not an unusual or special feature.

4.Secondly, the offer to settle was not backed up by an open offer with a threatened sanction as to costs.  Although I have some sympathy with the plaintiff on this aspect, I should not treat it in the same way as if it had been an open offer under the rules.  It was part of an unproductive negotiation.

5.Finally, although the terms of the charge provided for a solicitor and own client basis, I do not think it fair to transpose that basis (albeit agreed in the context of the mortgage arrangement) to this litigation.  I think it was somewhat onerous in any event and therefore should not support it by applying it to this dispute.

6.I am satisfied that the party and party basis provides appropriate remuneration for the plaintiff’s solicitors.

(Conrad Seagroatt)
Deputy Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Holman Fenwick Willan, for the plaintiff

Tanner De Witt, for the 2nd defendant

Cheung & Choy, for the 3rd defendant

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Indian Overseas Bank v. Vee Pee Global Ltd and Others
High Court CFI02 Dec 2014
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 2114/2011

Indian Overseas Bank v. Vee Pee Global Ltd and Others
High Court CFI02 Dec 2014