HOIE SOOK FONG AND ANOTHER v. ISMAIL HALIMA AND ANOTHER

HOIE SOOK FONG AND ANOTHER v. ISMAIL HALIMA AND ANOTHER

Because the third party claims between the 1st and 2nd defendants are independent of the plaintiffs' main action, costs relating to those indemnity applications are to be borne between the defendants; accordingly the costs order nisi is varied so that the 2nd defendant must pay the 1st defendant's costs of the application for indemnity and of resisting the 2nd defendant's indemnity application, to be taxed.

Citation
HOIE SOOK FONG AND ANOTHER v. ISMAIL HALIMA AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HOIE SOOK FONG; 2nd Plaintiff: JASON KA-WING STOKES; 1st Defendant: ISMAIL HALIMA; 2nd Defendant: A A PROPERTY AUCTIONEERS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 February 2009
Case Number
HCA1974/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation — Third Party Indemnity and Costs / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (application Heard 4 February 2009)
Outcome
Costs order nisi varied in favour of the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant to reflect costs of the independent third party indemnity proceedings.
Legal Topics
Variation of Costs Order, Taxation of Costs, Independence of Third Party Proceedings, Allocation of Costs Between Co Defendants
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Third Party Proceedings Indemnity Variation of Costs Order Taxation of Costs Independence of Third Party Proceedings Allocation of Costs Between Co Defendants

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOIE SOOK FONG

1st Plaintiff

JASON KA-WING STOKES

2nd Plaintiff

ISMAIL HALIMA

1st Defendant

A A PROPERTY AUCTIONEERS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation — Third Party Indemnity and Costs / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (application Heard 4 February 2009)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied so that the 2nd defendant pays the 1st defendant's costs relating to indemnity applications
  2. 2 Whether third party proceedings between co-defendants are independent of the plaintiff's main action
  3. 3 Whether it was inevitable for the defendants to claim indemnity against each other

Ratio Decidendi

Because the third party claims between the 1st and 2nd defendants are independent of the plaintiffs' main action, costs relating to those indemnity applications are to be borne between the defendants; accordingly the costs order nisi is varied so that the 2nd defendant must pay the 1st defendant's costs of the application for indemnity and of resisting the 2nd defendant's indemnity application, to be taxed.

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi varied in favour of the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant to reflect costs of the independent third party indemnity proceedings.

Orders

  • That the 2nd defendant do pay the 1st defendant her costs of application for indemnity against the 2nd defendant and her costs of resisting the 2nd defendant's application for indemnity to be taxed.