HUSSAIN BASHARAT v. 曾慶裕 AND ANOTHER

HUSSAIN BASHARAT v. 曾慶裕 AND ANOTHER

Because the 2nd defendant provided misleading information (notably the 18 May 2012 letter denying a rental agreement) and only produced the rental agreement on 4 January 2013, the court found the 2nd defendant brought about the litigation and must pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including 4 January 2013; after that date the plaintiff elected to continue against the 2nd defendant and therefore bears the subsequent costs; there was no basis for enhanced interest and the costs of the variation application are, on nisi basis, no order as to costs between the parties.

Citation
HUSSAIN BASHARAT v. 曾慶裕 AND ANOTHER
Parties
2nd Defendant: Tsang Kwok Keung
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 September 2015
Case Number
DCPI508/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Application to Vary Costs Order (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs order varied as set out in orders below
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Vicarious Liability, Costs Nisi, Enhanced Interest on Costs, Without Prejudice Correspondence, Interrogatories, Third Party Insurance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Insurance Law Disclosure Disclosure of Documents Vicarious Liability Costs Nisi +4 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang Kwok Keung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Application to Vary Costs Order (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant should bear the plaintiff's costs incurred prior to production of the rental agreement on 4 January 2013
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant deliberately withheld the rental agreement and misled the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose details of the insurance policy increased the length or cost of the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 2nd defendant provided misleading information (notably the 18 May 2012 letter denying a rental agreement) and only produced the rental agreement on 4 January 2013, the court found the 2nd defendant brought about the litigation and must pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including 4 January 2013; after that date the plaintiff elected to continue against the 2nd defendant and therefore bears the subsequent costs; there was no basis for enhanced interest and the costs of the variation application are, on nisi basis, no order as to costs between the parties.

Court Disposition

Costs order varied as set out in orders below

Orders

  • The 1st defendant do pay costs of this action to the plaintiff (include all costs reserved, if any) to be taxed if not agreed.
  • As between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant do pay costs to the plaintiff (include all costs reserved, if any) on or before 4 January 2013, to be taxed if not agreed.