B.P., SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, DR. POON v. GRAHAM SILVERTHORNE AND ANOTHER

B.P., SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, DR. POON v. GRAHAM SILVERTHORNE AND ANOTHER

The court refused to make a separate costs order or to award indemnity costs in respect of the disputed School Planner material, holding that once the documents were withdrawn the issue was one of credibility integrated into the broader trial issues and therefore costs related to it must be dealt with within the general costs order of the action; accordingly the general costs order (costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants with a certificate for two counsel) governs recovery of costs for this issue.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1253
Parties
Plaintiff: B.P.; 1st Defendant: Graham Silverthorne; 2nd Defendant: The English Schools Foundation (for and on behalf of South Island School)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
HCPI660/2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Ruling on Costs
Outcome
Application for separate costs order dismissed; indemnity costs refused; costs to be included in general costs of the action and payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as ordered in the main judgment with a certificate for two counsel.
Legal Topics
Authenticity of Documents, Discovery, Credibility of Witnesses, Costs Orders, Document Preparation and Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Costs Personal Injury Law Authenticity of Documents Discovery Credibility of Witnesses Costs Orders +1 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.P.

Plaintiff

Graham Silverthorne

1st Defendant

The English Schools Foundation (for and on behalf of South Island School)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Ruling on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inclusion of non-authentic documents was accidental or deliberate
  2. 2 Whether a separate costs order should be made for the challenge to the documents (authenticity/credibility)
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to make a separate costs order or to award indemnity costs in respect of the disputed School Planner material, holding that once the documents were withdrawn the issue was one of credibility integrated into the broader trial issues and therefore costs related to it must be dealt with within the general costs order of the action; accordingly the general costs order (costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants with a certificate for two counsel) governs recovery of costs for this issue.

Court Disposition

Application for separate costs order dismissed; indemnity costs refused; costs to be included in general costs of the action and payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as ordered in the main judgment with a certificate for two counsel.

Orders

  • Application for a separate costs order in relation to the disputed School Planners dismissed
  • No indemnity costs awarded to the defendants in respect of the authenticity/credibility issue