HO CHUN YAN ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

HO CHUN YAN ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER

Costs follow the event: the 1st Respondent succeeded in obtaining dismissal of the petition and is the successful party; the Petitioner failed to justify departing from that rule and did not show the 1st Respondent's arguments on discrete issues caused a significant increase in costs, therefore the Petitioner must pay the 1st Respondent's costs of the petition and motion (taxed with certificate for two counsel), and the 1st Respondent must pay the costs of his withdrawn leave summons up to 5 October 2012 (taxed without certificate).

Citation
HO CHUN YAN ALBERT v. LEUNG CHUN YING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Ho Chun Yan Albert; 1st Respondent: Leung Chun Ying; 2nd Respondent: The Hon Mr Justice Poon Shiu-Chor, Jeremy
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2013
Case Number
HCAL85/2012
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Under Chief Executive Ordinance (cap 569) and Related Leave Application / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Petition and Withdrawal of Leave Application
Outcome
Petitioner ordered to pay costs to 1st Respondent in respect of the election petition and motion; 1st Respondent ordered to pay limited costs of his withdrawn leave summons.
Legal Topics
Costs Allocation, Strike Out Applications, Leave to Appeal, Statutory Time Limits, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Electoral Law Costs Costs Allocation Strike Out Applications Leave to Appeal +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Chun Yan Albert

Petitioner

Leung Chun Ying

1st Respondent

The Hon Mr Justice Poon Shiu-Chor, Jeremy

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition Under Chief Executive Ordinance (cap 569) and Related Leave Application / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Petition and Withdrawal of Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event and the Petitioner ordered to pay the 1st Respondent's costs
  2. 2 Whether the court should deprive the successful 1st Respondent of costs in respect of discrete issues on which he did not prevail
  3. 3 Whether decision on costs should be deferred pending appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Costs follow the event: the 1st Respondent succeeded in obtaining dismissal of the petition and is the successful party; the Petitioner failed to justify departing from that rule and did not show the 1st Respondent's arguments on discrete issues caused a significant increase in costs, therefore the Petitioner must pay the 1st Respondent's costs of the petition and motion (taxed with certificate for two counsel), and the 1st Respondent must pay the costs of his withdrawn leave summons up to 5 October 2012 (taxed without certificate).

Court Disposition

Petitioner ordered to pay costs to 1st Respondent in respect of the election petition and motion; 1st Respondent ordered to pay limited costs of his withdrawn leave summons.

Orders

  • Petitioner to pay the 1st Respondent's costs of the election petition (including the motion dated 11 July 2012), such costs to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel
  • 1st Respondent to pay the costs of the leave summons up to 5 October 2012, such costs to be taxed if not agreed, without any certificate