郭文英女士 對 香港個人資料私隱專員公署及另一人

郭文英女士 對 香港個人資料私隱專員公署及另一人

Because the first defendant unequivocally informed the court that it did not intend to seek costs in relation to the applicant's leave application, the court revoked the earlier order requiring the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs and made no order as to costs between the applicant and the first...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCA 997
Parties
Applicant: 郭文英女士; First Defendant: 香港個人資料私隱專員公署; Second Defendant: 行政上訴委員會
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 November 2024
Case Number
CAMP373/2023
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application (camp) / Determination of Costs Following Revocation of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The Court affirmed its revocation of the applicant's leave application; it revoked the portion of the earlier costs order requiring the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs and ordered that there be no order as to costs between the applicant and the first defendant in respect of the applicant's leave...
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs, Waiver of Costs, Procedural Orders, Service of Documents
Source Language
ch
Administrative Law Data Protection Civil Procedure Costs Law Leave to Appeal Costs Waiver of Costs Procedural Orders +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

郭文英女士

Applicant

香港個人資料私隱專員公署

First Defendant

行政上訴委員會

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application (camp) / Determination of Costs Following Revocation of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to revoke the costs order against the applicant in respect of the first defendant following the first defendant's communicated intention not to seek costs
  2. 2 Whether there should be any order as to costs between the applicant and the first defendant in relation to the applicant's leave application
  3. 3 Whether the earlier order requiring the applicant to pay costs to the second defendant remains in effect

Ratio Decidendi

Because the first defendant unequivocally informed the court that it did not intend to seek costs in relation to the applicant's leave application, the court revoked the earlier order requiring the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs and made no order as to costs between the applicant and the first defendant in respect of that application.

Court Disposition

The Court affirmed its revocation of the applicant's leave application; it revoked the portion of the earlier costs order requiring the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs and ordered that there be no order as to costs between the applicant and the first defendant in respect of the applicant's leave...

Orders

  • Revocation of the earlier order insofar as it required the applicant to pay the first defendant's costs.
  • In relation to the applicant's application for leave to appeal dated 15 December 2023, there is no order as to costs between the applicant and the first defendant.