ALCATEL CABLE CONTRACTING NORWAY AS AND ANOTHER v. TITAN LOGISTIC(S) PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

ALCATEL CABLE CONTRACTING NORWAY AS AND ANOTHER v. TITAN LOGISTIC(S) PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

The court declined the Bullock indemnity because plaintiffs had targeted both defendants and there was no basis to require the 1st defendant to pick up the 2nd defendant's costs; however the court exercised its discretion to certify the case fit for two counsel for taxation purposes, subject to temporal limitation that costs for counsel before 1 July 1998 be limited to junior counsel only, and ordered plaintiffs to pay the costs of the 2nd defendant's summons to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
ALCATEL CABLE CONTRACTING NORWAY AS AND ANOTHER v. TITAN LOGISTIC(S) PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: ALCATEL CABLE CONTRACTING NORWAY AS; 2nd Plaintiff: GERLING NORGE AS; 1st Defendant: TITAN LOGISTIC(S) PTE LTD; 2nd Defendant: KANIA LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 November 2000
Case Number
HCCL259/1996
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action No.259 of 1996 / Judgment and Costs Applications (post Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' summons dated 6 November 2000 dismissed; 2nd defendant's summons dated 30 October 2000 granted in part
Legal Topics
Bullock Order (indemnity for Costs), Certification for Two Counsel, Taxation of Costs, Contribution Notices, Duty/standard of Care in Stevedoring
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Admiralty/shipping Civil Procedure (costs) Agency/bailment Bullock Order (indemnity for Costs) Certification for Two Counsel Taxation of Costs +2 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALCATEL CABLE CONTRACTING NORWAY AS

1st Plaintiff

GERLING NORGE AS

2nd Plaintiff

TITAN LOGISTIC(S) PTE LTD

1st Defendant

KANIA LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action No.259 of 1996 / Judgment and Costs Applications (post Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a Bullock order requiring the 1st defendant to indemnify plaintiffs for costs payable to the 2nd defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant may recover taxed costs for two counsel
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings and circumstances justified suing both defendants and therefore indemnification

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined the Bullock indemnity because plaintiffs had targeted both defendants and there was no basis to require the 1st defendant to pick up the 2nd defendant's costs; however the court exercised its discretion to certify the case fit for two counsel for taxation purposes, subject to temporal limitation that costs for counsel before 1 July 1998 be limited to junior counsel only, and ordered plaintiffs to pay the costs of the 2nd defendant's summons to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' summons dated 6 November 2000 dismissed; 2nd defendant's summons dated 30 October 2000 granted in part

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' summons dated 6 November 2000 dismissed with no order as to costs
  • For taxing the costs to be paid by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs to the 2nd defendant, the case is certified as fit for two counsel, save that the taxed costs of the 2nd defendant incurred for counsel prior to 1 July 1998 are to be the costs of junior counsel only