WONG TAK CHUEN JOE v. WONG TAT TUNG AND ANOTHER

WONG TAK CHUEN JOE v. WONG TAT TUNG AND ANOTHER

The Petitioner should have withdrawn the Election Petition after the 26 September hearing because the Petition was clearly unlikely to succeed; outstanding ICAC investigations did not justify continuation, therefore the Petitioner must pay costs to the 2nd Respondent and the Intervener on a party-to-party basis and pay the 1st Respondent party-to-party costs up to and including 26 September and indemnity costs thereafter.

Citation
WONG TAK CHUEN JOE v. WONG TAT TUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: WONG TAK CHUEN JOE; 1st Respondent: WONG TAT TUNG; 2nd Respondent: MAY CHAN WING SHIU; Intervener: CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Case Number
HCAL6/2012
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Costs judgment ordering the Petitioner to pay costs to respondents and intervener with indemnity costs from 27 September against the Petitioner in respect of the 1st Respondent
Legal Topics
Election Petition, Costs, Indemnity Costs, Withdrawal of Proceedings, ICAC Investigation, District Councils Ordinance Section 49, Rules of the High Court Order 1 a
Source Language
EN
Electoral Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Public Law Election Petition Costs Indemnity Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG TAK CHUEN JOE

Petitioner

WONG TAT TUNG

1st Respondent

MAY CHAN WING SHIU

2nd Respondent

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Petitioner should pay costs of the respondents and intervener
  2. 2 Whether costs after 26 September should be awarded on an indemnity basis
  3. 3 Whether outstanding ICAC investigations justified continuing the Election Petition

Ratio Decidendi

The Petitioner should have withdrawn the Election Petition after the 26 September hearing because the Petition was clearly unlikely to succeed; outstanding ICAC investigations did not justify continuation, therefore the Petitioner must pay costs to the 2nd Respondent and the Intervener on a party-to-party basis and pay the 1st Respondent party-to-party costs up to and including 26 September and indemnity costs thereafter.

Court Disposition

Costs judgment ordering the Petitioner to pay costs to respondents and intervener with indemnity costs from 27 September against the Petitioner in respect of the 1st Respondent

Orders

  • Petitioner to pay the costs of the 2nd Respondent and the Intervener on a party-to-party basis
  • Petitioner to pay the 1st Respondent's costs on a party-to-party basis up to and including the hearing on 26 September