HKSAR v. C.D.F. COGHLAN

HKSAR v. C.D.F. COGHLAN

The magistrate's refusal to award costs is an appealable order; s.113(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance continues to provide a right of appeal in respect of such orders because the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance Cap.492 does not expressly or by necessary implication repeal that right; the magistrate misapplied the discretion and the appellant is entitled to costs, to be taxed if not agreed (subject to the statutory cap).

Citation
HKSAR v. C.D.F. COGHLAN
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: C.D.F. Coghlan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 September 1999
Case Number
HCMA1004/1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistrates' Costs) / Appeal From Magistrate's Refusal of Costs Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appealability of Costs Orders, Costs Awards for Acquitted Defendants, Repeal by Implication, Magistrates' Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedure Costs Law Statutory Interpretation Appealability of Costs Orders Costs Awards for Acquitted Defendants Repeal by Implication Magistrates' Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

C.D.F. Coghlan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistrates' Costs) / Appeal From Magistrate's Refusal of Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a magistrate's decision refusing to award costs constitutes an appealable order
  2. 2 Whether s.19(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance Cap.492 limits appeals to orders awarding costs only
  3. 3 Whether s.113(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance Cap.227 remains available to appeal an order refusing costs after enactment of Cap.492

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's refusal to award costs is an appealable order; s.113(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance continues to provide a right of appeal in respect of such orders because the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance Cap.492 does not expressly or by necessary implication repeal that right; the magistrate misapplied the discretion and the appellant is entitled to costs, to be taxed if not agreed (subject to the statutory cap).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in the Court below and in the Court of First Instance, to be taxed if not agreed