Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2302/2014 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 17 February 2015 before Hon Lam VP, Poon J.
Costs — Application for leave to appeal — Quantum and basis of costs — Whether solicitor liable under Order 62 Rule 8 for unmeritorious application — High Court Court of Appeal held costs between plaintiff and defendant up to 12 December 2014 on indemnity basis, thereafter party-to-party basis. Defendant’s solicitor fees substantially reduced due to unreasonable charges for document preparation, perusal, and communications. Full counsel fees allowed. Fixed defendant’s costs at $149,917. Noted potential overreach in costs due to unmeritorious leave to appeal application by plaintiff’s solicitor. Directed a second stage hearing confined to whether order should be made against plaintiff’s solicitor under Order 62 Rule 8. Defendant excluded from this hearing. The hearing will focus on solicitor’s duty, justification of application, and consistency with Order 1A Rules 1 and 3. Costs orders against public fund depend on outcome of this hearing. Notices to be given accordingly. The judgment balances proper costs recovery and solicitor’s professional responsibilities in litigation conduct.
Legal issues: Costs order basis and quantum · Liability of Director of Legal Aid for costs
Outcome: Costs ordered on indemnity basis up to 12 December 2014 and on party-to-party basis for costs thereafter; defendant’s costs fixed at $149,917; second stage hearing ordered against plaintiff’s solicitor under Order 62 Rule 8; defendant not to be involved in that hearing.
Cited by 2 cases