TIN WAN TUNG v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS

TIN WAN TUNG v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS

The master did not err or act unreasonably in taking a global view and departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event because the defendants’ breaches were trivial/technical, the CJR requires proportionality, and the master was entitled to exercise discretion; the appeal is dismissed and the plaintiffs must pay defendants’ costs of the appeal (taxed if not agreed) with limited exceptions.

Citation
TIN WAN TUNG v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 167/2011): Tin Wan Tung; Plaintiff (hca 1801/2010): Fully Pacific Development Limited; 1st Defendant: Wong See Yin; 2nd Defendant: Matrix Wealth Limited; 3rd Defendant: Fully Fortune (Asia) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
HCA167/2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal Against Master's Costs Order in Consolidated Actions / Decision on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Striking Out, Witness Statements, Litigants in Person, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Civil Justice Reform Costs Orders Striking Out Witness Statements Litigants in Person +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tin Wan Tung

Plaintiff (hca 167/2011)

Fully Pacific Development Limited

Plaintiff (hca 1801/2010)

Wong See Yin

1st Defendant

Matrix Wealth Limited

2nd Defendant

Fully Fortune (Asia) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal Against Master's Costs Order in Consolidated Actions / Decision on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the master erred in law or acted unreasonably in declining to award costs for partial success
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event absent misconduct or legal error
  3. 3 Whether defendants' breaches of the case management order warranted an award of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The master did not err or act unreasonably in taking a global view and departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event because the defendants’ breaches were trivial/technical, the CJR requires proportionality, and the master was entitled to exercise discretion; the appeal is dismissed and the plaintiffs must pay defendants’ costs of the appeal (taxed if not agreed) with limited exceptions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi that the plaintiffs pay the defendants their costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed