Lau Tin Cheung v. Tianjin Development Holdings Ltd

HCA 422/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 422 OF 2011

(TRANSFERRED FROM LABOUR TRIBUNAL CASE NO LBTC 331/2011)

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N
_____________

1.This is an application by the defendant for an order that the execution of my judgment given on 12 December 2014 be stayed pending the disposal of the defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal in CACV 2 of 2015.

2.The application is supported by the affidavit of Law Hoi Yan Helen, a partner in the firm of solicitors acting for the defendant.  There are two matters relied on.  

3.One, as set out in paragraph 7, that she has been advised by trial counsel and verily believes that the defendant’s grounds of appeal are strong and that there is a strong likelihood that the defendant’s appeal would succeed. 

4.Ms Chung relies on the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal dated 6 January 2015 which is exhibit LHY2 to the affidavit of Helen Law. I have considered the grounds.  I am not persuaded that there is a strong likelihood that the defendant’s appeal would succeed. 

5.The other ground relied on is set out in paragraph 8 of Helen Law’s affidavit.  She makes the bald statement that she verily believes that there exists a risk that the judgment sum, once paid to the plaintiff, would be substantially dissipated and the plaintiff would not be able to repay to the defendant in the event of a successful appeal.  No sources and grounds for that belief are set out in the evidence.  There is no evidence at all to show that there exists a risk that the judgment sum, once paid to the plaintiff, would be substantially dissipated and that the plaintiff would not be able to repay to the defendant the judgment sum in the event of a successful appeal. 

6.I see no reason why the plaintiff should be deprived of the fruits of the judgment pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. 

7.I dismiss the application by summons dated 20 January 2015.   

(Submission as to costs )

8.This is the summary assessment of the costs of the application by the defendant by summons dated 20 January 2015.  I have dismissed the summons and I make an order that the costs be to the plaintiff to be summarily assessed.   

9.I have considered the plaintiff’s statement of costs and the submissions made by counsel for and against the amounts sought.  Applying a broad brush approach, it seems to me that some of the items in items C and D should be reduced as far as the time spent.  It seems to me that there should be some reduction in those sums.  Even for item E, it seems to me there should also be some reduction in the total sum of $65,000.

10.Applying a broad brush approach, I would assess the costs in the total sum of $78,000.  That is the order for costs that I make.   

11.The summons is dismissed with costs summarily assessed at $78,000.

Mr Douglas Lam, instructed by T C Foo & Co, for the plaintiff

Ms May Chung, instructed by Gallant Y T Ho & Co, for the defendant