CHAN LAN v. SHING KEI AND ANOTHER

CHAN LAN v. SHING KEI AND ANOTHER

Applying In re Elgindata (No.2) the court found the defendants had pursued a discrete contractual claim on which they failed and that pursuit caused a significant but not dominant increase in trial length; the court estimated the non-overlapping time attributable to the unsuccessful contractual claim at about 25% and accordingly varied the costs order nisi so the Plaintiff must pay 75% of the Defendants' costs (including HCA 48/2006 and the costs of the costs hearing), taxed if not agreed.

Citation
CHAN LAN v. SHING KEI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chan Lan; 1st Defendant: Shing Kei; 2nd Defendant: Shing Ying Chieh
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 June 2008
Case Number
HCA1206/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Ruling on Costs (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs order nisi varied: Plaintiff ordered to pay 75% of the Defendants' costs
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Gift, Constructive Trust/beneficial Interest, Costs Apportionment, Counterclaim
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Equity Contract Costs Specific Performance Gift Constructive Trust/beneficial Interest +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Lan

Plaintiff

Shing Kei

1st Defendant

Shing Ying Chieh

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Ruling on Costs (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied
  2. 2 Whether defendants should be deprived of costs for raising a contractual claim on which they failed
  3. 3 Whether costs attributable to the failed contractual claim can be isolated and estimated

Ratio Decidendi

Applying In re Elgindata (No.2) the court found the defendants had pursued a discrete contractual claim on which they failed and that pursuit caused a significant but not dominant increase in trial length; the court estimated the non-overlapping time attributable to the unsuccessful contractual claim at about 25% and accordingly varied the costs order nisi so the Plaintiff must pay 75% of the Defendants' costs (including HCA 48/2006 and the costs of the costs hearing), taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi varied: Plaintiff ordered to pay 75% of the Defendants' costs

Orders

  • That the Plaintiff doth pay the 1st and 2nd Defendants 75% of their costs of and incidental to the action herein and that of and in High Court Action No.48 of 2006 to be taxed if not agreed.