HO KWOK HING v. LAM TAI HING TSO AND OTHERS

HO KWOK HING v. LAM TAI HING TSO AND OTHERS

The judge concluded that costs in the cause remain appropriate because both parties contributed to the procedural shortcomings; the adjournment of the earlier hearing was not solely the plaintiff's fault; defendants had pursued issues (alternative access) irrelevant to a prescription claim; and the matter still required trial so interlocutory costs should not be shifted to plaintiff now.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1422
Parties
Defendants: EW Managers of Lam Tai Hing Tso
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 2018
Case Number
HCA694/2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Concerning Right of Way / Easement by Prescription / Decision on Costs Following Interlocutory Hearing (costs Order Nisi)
Outcome
Defendants' application to vary the costs order nisi dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute (costs in the cause)
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Easement by Prescription, Costs Order Nisi, Variation of Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Costs Interim Injunction Easement by Prescription Costs Order Nisi Variation of Costs Order

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EW Managers of Lam Tai Hing Tso

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Concerning Right of Way / Easement by Prescription / Decision on Costs Following Interlocutory Hearing (costs Order Nisi)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied and specific costs awarded to defendants
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was solely or largely responsible for previous adjournments and poor preparation
  3. 3 Relevance of evidence about alternative means of access given claim for easement by prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The judge concluded that costs in the cause remain appropriate because both parties contributed to the procedural shortcomings; the adjournment of the earlier hearing was not solely the plaintiff's fault; defendants had pursued issues (alternative access) irrelevant to a prescription claim; and the matter still required trial so interlocutory costs should not be shifted to plaintiff now.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to vary the costs order nisi dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute (costs in the cause)

Orders

  • Costs order nisi declared absolute: costs of the plaintiff's application (including costs previously reserved) to be costs in the cause.
  • Costs of the defendants' application to vary are to be paid by the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.