CHEN TEK YEE v. CHAN MOON SHING AND ANOTHER

CHEN TEK YEE v. CHAN MOON SHING AND ANOTHER

No exceptional circumstances justified departure from the usual practice of ordering costs in the cause; the 2nd Defendant's consent avoided a contested inter partes hearing; therefore costs of the injunction are in the cause, but costs incurred since 26 August (including the hearing on costs) are to be paid to the 2nd Defendant and were assessed at $35,000.

Citation
CHEN TEK YEE v. CHAN MOON SHING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Chen Tek Yee; 1st Defendant: Chan Moon Shing; 2nd Defendant: Ng Goon Lau, Joseph
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Case Number
HCA954/2010
Procedural Posture
Action No. 954 of 2010 Civil Action for Injunction and Private Nuisance / Ruling on Costs of Ex Parte Injunction (interlocutory)
Outcome
Costs of the injunction to be in the cause; costs incurred since 26 August, including the hearing on 23 November 2010, awarded to the 2nd Defendant and assessed at $35,000.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Private Nuisance, Costs in the Cause, Consent Summons, Ex Parte Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Tort Civil Procedure Costs Equity Interim Injunction Private Nuisance +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chen Tek Yee

Plaintiff

Chan Moon Shing

1st Defendant

Ng Goon Lau, Joseph

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action No. 954 of 2010 Civil Action for Injunction and Private Nuisance / Ruling on Costs of Ex Parte Injunction (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of the ex parte injunction should be awarded to the Plaintiff or be costs in the cause
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant's consent to continuation of the ex parte order affects entitlement to costs
  3. 3 Whether the injunction matter is discrete from the main action such that costs should follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

No exceptional circumstances justified departure from the usual practice of ordering costs in the cause; the 2nd Defendant's consent avoided a contested inter partes hearing; therefore costs of the injunction are in the cause, but costs incurred since 26 August (including the hearing on costs) are to be paid to the 2nd Defendant and were assessed at $35,000.

Court Disposition

Costs of the injunction to be in the cause; costs incurred since 26 August, including the hearing on 23 November 2010, awarded to the 2nd Defendant and assessed at $35,000.

Orders

  • Costs in the cause for the injunction application
  • Costs incurred since 26 August, including the hearing on 23 November 2010, to the 2nd Defendant assessed at $35,000