FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER

s16C must be applied strictly and according to formal party designation; absent a pleaded counterclaim Lee’s interlocutory application does not constitute a counterclaim for the purposes of s16C(1)(b)(ia), so the Director is not liable for the Plaintiffs’ costs and the court will not vary the Costs Order.

Citation
FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK WAI t/a WING BO MOTOR CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CHEUNG CHEUNG (張長); 1st Defendant: LEE KWOK WAI trading as WING BO MOTOR CO (永寶汽車公司); 2nd Defendant: OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2015
Case Number
HCMP2851/2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings / Summons to Vary Costs Order (decision on Summons)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; costs awarded to the 1st defendant Lee
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Interlocutory Injunction, Costs Liability Under Legal Aid, Statutory Interpretation of S16 C
Source Language
EN
Land Law Civil Procedure Legal Aid Costs Adverse Possession Interlocutory Injunction Costs Liability Under Legal Aid Statutory Interpretation of S16 C

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FASTWAY (HK) INVESTMENT LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CHEUNG CHEUNG (張長)

2nd Plaintiff

LEE KWOK WAI trading as WING BO MOTOR CO (永寶汽車公司)

1st Defendant

OCCUPIER(S) OF PREMISES

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings / Summons to Vary Costs Order (decision on Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Legal Aid is liable to pay the costs of the 1st defendant’s interlocutory application under s16C of the Legal Aid Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to vary the prior costs order to provide that the Director pay those costs

Ratio Decidendi

s16C must be applied strictly and according to formal party designation; absent a pleaded counterclaim Lee’s interlocutory application does not constitute a counterclaim for the purposes of s16C(1)(b)(ia), so the Director is not liable for the Plaintiffs’ costs and the court will not vary the Costs Order.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; costs awarded to the 1st defendant Lee

Orders

  • Summons dated 30 June 2015 dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be paid to the 1st defendant (costs to follow the event).