BUILDTECH LTD v. HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

BUILDTECH LTD v. HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

The judge exercised the court's discretion afresh and found that where parties had genuinely engaged in settlement discussions prior to the due date and no milestone or hearing date would be affected, a short post-due extension could be granted. The defendant was granted the extension on strict terms: file and serve...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BUILDTECH LTD v. HUNG WAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Buildtech Limited; Defendant: Hung Wan Construction Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2013
Case Number
DCCJ1385/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Taxation / Appeal From Taxing Master to Judge in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; learned master's order of refusal set aside and substituted with an unless order granting a limited extension and imposing sanctions
Legal Topics
Practice Direction 14.3, Extension of Time, Civil Justice Reform (cjr), Sanctions for Delay, Taxing Master Powers
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Law Court Practice Directions Taxation of Costs Practice Direction 14.3 Extension of Time Civil Justice Reform (cjr) Sanctions for Delay +1 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buildtech Limited

Plaintiff

Hung Wan Construction Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs Taxation / Appeal From Taxing Master to Judge in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to set bill of costs down for taxation
  2. 2 Whether ongoing settlement discussions constitute a good reason under PD 14.3 para 24
  3. 3 Interpretation and enforceability of Practice Direction 14.3 within the CJR framework

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised the court's discretion afresh and found that where parties had genuinely engaged in settlement discussions prior to the due date and no milestone or hearing date would be affected, a short post-due extension could be granted. The defendant was granted the extension on strict terms: file and serve the Application within three days or be debarred; interest on taxed costs was disallowed for the period of undue delay (12 December 2012 to filing date); defendant to pay plaintiff's costs for the extension application. The court balanced the objectives of the CJR, the content of PD 14.3 and proportionality and imposed a sanction short of permanently depriving the defendant of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; learned master's order of refusal set aside and substituted with an unless order granting a limited extension and imposing sanctions

Orders

  • Unless the defendant files and serves the Application to Set Down a Bill for Taxation within three days from the date of this decision, the defendant is debarred from filing or serving the Application
  • Defendant is disallowed interest on the taxed costs for the period from 12 December 2012 to the date of filing of the Application