香港海洲同鄉會有限公司 v. 魏遜華

香港海洲同鄉會有限公司 v. 魏遜華

Leave to appeal was refused in relation to Rulings (1), (3) and (4) because the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion on costs and the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success; leave to appeal was granted only in respect of Ruling (2) because the Tribunal had made an identifiable procedural error in the Decision on Costs by failing to specify and separate costs on or before 19 September 2016, which should be awarded to the applicant and summarily assessed at $3,000; the Tribunal also held that where a setting aside is contested after disclosure of the defendant's basis of defence costs may follow the event for the contested period.

Citation
香港海洲同鄉會有限公司 v. 魏遜華
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Case Number
LDPD1542/2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Tribunal Costs Decision (lands Tribunal) / Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal (decision by Lands Tribunal Member)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted in part (Ruling 2) and dismissed in part (Rulings 1, 3 and 4).
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Summary Assessment of Costs, Withdrawal of Summons, Late Written Submissions
Source Language
EN
Lands Tribunal Civil Procedure Costs Law Appeals Costs Orders Setting Aside Default Judgment Leave to Appeal Summary Assessment of Costs +2 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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Tribunal Costs Decision (lands Tribunal) / Hearing on Application for Leave to Appeal (decision by Lands Tribunal Member)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in applying 'costs follow the event' to a setting aside of a regular default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant factors when awarding costs for the setting aside application
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded for a withdrawn summons taken out by the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused in relation to Rulings (1), (3) and (4) because the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion on costs and the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success; leave to appeal was granted only in respect of Ruling (2) because the Tribunal had made an identifiable procedural error in the Decision on Costs by failing to specify and separate costs on or before 19 September 2016, which should be awarded to the applicant and summarily assessed at $3,000; the Tribunal also held that where a setting aside is contested after disclosure of the defendant's basis of defence costs may follow the event for the contested period.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted in part (Ruling 2) and dismissed in part (Rulings 1, 3 and 4).

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted against Ruling (2) only
  • Leave to appeal refused against Rulings (1), (3) and (4)