HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER

HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER

Having considered the nature of the dispute, parties' conduct, the settlement terms and practical effect on a modest estate, the court held that costs of both parties should be borne by the estate and, to avoid taxation, fixed the Plaintiff's costs at $300,000 and the Defendants' costs at $91,000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b); no personal costs order was made against the Defendants.

Citation
HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (beneficiary to the Estate of Her Late Mother): Ho Chi Mei; 1st Defendant (co Administratrix of the Estate): Ho Che Ying; 2nd Defendant (co Administratrix of the Estate): Ho Chi Kiu Dora alias Ho Chi Kiu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 February 2010
Case Number
HCA1002/2008
Procedural Posture
Estate Administration Action (proceeding by Writ) / Costs Determination Following Settlement and Consent Order
Outcome
Costs to be borne by the estate; Plaintiff's costs fixed at $300,000; Defendants' costs fixed at $91,000; no personal costs order against the Defendants.
Legal Topics
Costs Allocation, Settlement, Removal of Administrators, Taxation/fixing of Costs, Originating Process
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Probate and Estate Administration Costs Costs Allocation Settlement Removal of Administrators Taxation/fixing of Costs Originating Process

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Chi Mei

Plaintiff (beneficiary to the Estate of Her Late Mother)

Ho Che Ying

1st Defendant (co Administratrix of the Estate)

Ho Chi Kiu Dora alias Ho Chi Kiu

2nd Defendant (co Administratrix of the Estate)

Procedural Posture

Estate Administration Action (proceeding by Writ) / Costs Determination Following Settlement and Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded personally against the Defendants or charged to the estate
  2. 2 Whether the court may fix costs without adjudicating the merits in an administration action
  3. 3 What quantum of costs is appropriate given the settlement and parties' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the nature of the dispute, parties' conduct, the settlement terms and practical effect on a modest estate, the court held that costs of both parties should be borne by the estate and, to avoid taxation, fixed the Plaintiff's costs at $300,000 and the Defendants' costs at $91,000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b); no personal costs order was made against the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Costs to be borne by the estate; Plaintiff's costs fixed at $300,000; Defendants' costs fixed at $91,000; no personal costs order against the Defendants.

Orders

  • Costs of both parties to be borne by the estate.
  • Fix Plaintiff's costs at $300,000 and Defendants' costs at $91,000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b).