Lee Chick Choi v. Best Spirits Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 371/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 June 2015.
1. On 21 May 2015, we handed down our decision dismissing the plaintiff’s summons seeking leave to appeal out of time. We made an order nisi awarding costs to the defendant which we assessed on a gross sum basis at $50,000, with leave to either party to vary the order nisi within seven days thereafter.
Cited by 53 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCMP 371/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 371 OF 2015 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2045 OF 2012) ________________________
________________________
________________________ DECISION ON COSTS ________________________ Hon Kwan JA (giving the Decision of the Court): 1.On 21 May 2015, we handed down our decision dismissing the plaintiff’s summons seeking leave to appeal out of time. We made an order nisi awarding costs to the defendant which we assessed on a gross sum basis at $50,000, with leave to either party to vary the order nisi within seven days thereafter. 2.The plaintiff lodged a written submission on 28 May 2015 of five pages seeking to vary the order nisi to the effect that there should be no order as to costs in respect of the defendant’s written submission which he alleged was served out of time, for one reason or other. Further, he asserted that as a bankruptcy order was made against him in HCB 1128/2015 on 18 May 2015, he is not entitled to pay any costs to the defendant. 3.The defendant did not file any reply to this submission. 4.There is no substance in any of the contentions in the plaintiff’s submission. We decline to vary the order nisi or the gross sum assessment thereunder. The bankruptcy order makes no difference to the plaintiff’s liability for costs as ordered by this court. How the defendant is to enforce the costs order against the bankrupt’s estate is a matter for the defendant.
Written submission by the Plaintiff (Applicant), acting in person Hobson & Ma, for the Defendant (Respondent) |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 371/2015