JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH AND OTHERS

JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH AND OTHERS

The Court affirmed indemnity costs because the 1st defendant's strike out application was misconceived and palpably unarguable and persistence in appealing was a waste of court and plaintiff resources; therefore indemnity costs were appropriate and the claimed costs were summarily assessed and reduced to $103,448...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Jose Miranda da Costa Junior; 2nd Plaintiff: Miranda Gems E Mine Ltda; 1st Defendant: Lorenzo Yih aka Yu Chuan Yih; 2nd Defendant: Paraiba Limited; 3rd Defendant: Miranda Gems (HK) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Case Number
HCMP2696/2013
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceeding (leave to Appeal) / Decision on Costs (post Refusal of Leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Order affirmed: 1st defendant to pay 1st plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis; costs summarily assessed and reduced; specified disallowance of item D1.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Party and Party Costs, Strike Out Application, Leave to Appeal, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Strike Out Taxation of Costs Indemnity Costs Party and Party Costs Strike Out Application +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jose Miranda da Costa Junior

1st Plaintiff

Miranda Gems E Mine Ltda

2nd Plaintiff

Lorenzo Yih aka Yu Chuan Yih

1st Defendant

Paraiba Limited

2nd Defendant

Miranda Gems (HK) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceeding (leave to Appeal) / Decision on Costs (post Refusal of Leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order nisi awarding indemnity costs should be varied to party and party costs
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant's strike out application and persistence to appeal justified an award of indemnity costs
  3. 3 Appropriate basis and assessment of costs on summary assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed indemnity costs because the 1st defendant's strike out application was misconceived and palpably unarguable and persistence in appealing was a waste of court and plaintiff resources; therefore indemnity costs were appropriate and the claimed costs were summarily assessed and reduced to $103,448 with item D1 disallowed.

Court Disposition

Order affirmed: 1st defendant to pay 1st plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis; costs summarily assessed and reduced; specified disallowance of item D1.

Orders

  • 1st defendant to pay the 1st plaintiff's costs of this application on an indemnity basis.
  • The indemnity costs are to include the unsuccessful application by the 1st defendant to vary the costs order nisi.