RE MADAM TAN

RE MADAM TAN

Receiving party failed to proceed with taxation with reasonable promptitude, producing an inexcusable/unaccounted delay of approximately eight to nine months; proof of prejudice is not required to exercise the discretion under RHC O62 r22(3) and r7(5); appropriate remedy is a global reduction of 8% of the taxed costs in each of the four bills and reinstatement of items relating to costs of taxation, with an adjourned hearing to deal with re‑instated items and costs.

Citation
RE MADAM TAN
Parties
Plaintiffs: Various financial institutions; 3rd Defendant (applicant/receiving Party): Madam Tan Bo Bo Brenda (alias Tan Bo Bo)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 1999
Case Number
DCCJ14567/1994
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation (costs) Arising From Discharge of Charging Orders / Review Heard 2 July 1999; Reasons Handed Down 20 July 1999
Outcome
Review allowed in part: finding of undue delay; global reduction of 8% imposed on each of four taxed Bills; items relating to costs of taxation reinstated; further hearing listed for adjudication of re‑instated items and costs order nisi to be addressed.
Legal Topics
Delay in Filing Bill of Costs, Discharge of Charging Orders, Taxing Master's Discretion, Sanctions for Undue Delay, Interest on Delayed Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Property (charging Orders) Delay in Filing Bill of Costs Discharge of Charging Orders Taxing Master's Discretion Sanctions for Undue Delay Interest on Delayed Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various financial institutions

Plaintiffs

Madam Tan Bo Bo Brenda (alias Tan Bo Bo)

3rd Defendant (applicant/receiving Party)

Procedural Posture

Review of Taxation (costs) Arising From Discharge of Charging Orders / Review Heard 2 July 1999; Reasons Handed Down 20 July 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was undue/inexcusable delay in filing the bills of costs
  2. 2 Whether proof of prejudice is required before exercising discretion under RHC O62 r22(3) and r7(5)
  3. 3 What sanction is appropriate for undue delay and whether costs of taxation should be disallowed in addition to a global reduction

Ratio Decidendi

Receiving party failed to proceed with taxation with reasonable promptitude, producing an inexcusable/unaccounted delay of approximately eight to nine months; proof of prejudice is not required to exercise the discretion under RHC O62 r22(3) and r7(5); appropriate remedy is a global reduction of 8% of the taxed costs in each of the four bills and reinstatement of items relating to costs of taxation, with an adjourned hearing to deal with re‑instated items and costs.

Court Disposition

Review allowed in part: finding of undue delay; global reduction of 8% imposed on each of four taxed Bills; items relating to costs of taxation reinstated; further hearing listed for adjudication of re‑instated items and costs order nisi to be addressed.

Orders

  • Global reduction of 8% of the taxed costs in each of the four Bills of Costs
  • Items relating to costs of taxation previously taxed off are to be re‑instated