CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

The court held that costs discretion post-reform is flexible: follow-the-event is a starting point not a rule; the court must allocate costs to achieve overall justice by considering public interest, conduct, partial successes and specific interlocutory outcomes. Applying those principles the court awarded respondents costs for specified interlocutory appearances and ordered the applicants to pay 60% of respondents' costs (party and party) generally, awarded applicants costs for the successful amendment application, and required respondents to pay 100% of applicants' costs in respect of costs reserved on 30 August 2007; costs in HCMP 1157/2007 remain in the cause and no further order...

Citation
CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Parties
1st Applicant: Chan Mei Yiu, Paddy; 2nd Applicant / 1st Applicant (hcal 19/2007): Harmony Gold Limited; Applicant (hcal 17/2007): Wiltshire Trading Limited; 1st Applicant (hcal 18/2007): Hsu May Chun, Katherine; 2nd Applicant (hcal 19/2007) / 3rd Plaintiff (hcmp 1175/2007): CS Secretaries Limited; 3rd Applicant (hcal 19/2007) / 4th Plaintiff (hcmp 1175/2007): Loong Po Managment Limited; 1st Respondent / Defendant: Secretary for Justice; 2nd Respondent: Commissioner of Police; 3rd Respondent (detective Senior Inspector): Leung King Hung; 4th Respondent: A Magistrate sitting at Eastern Magistracy on 16 January 2007
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 2010
Case Number
HCMP1175/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) Consolidated With HCMP 1175/2007 (letter of Request) / Decision on Costs After Substantive Judgment Dismissing Judicial Review
Outcome
Costs reserved were allocated to achieve overall justice: specified interlocutory costs awarded to respective parties and overall percentages ordered for taxation on party and party basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Judicial Review Leave, Discovery, Letters of Request, Public Interest Litigation, Search Powers
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Mutual Legal Assistance Costs Judicial Review Leave Discovery Letters of Request +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Mei Yiu, Paddy

1st Applicant

Harmony Gold Limited

2nd Applicant / 1st Applicant (hcal 19/2007)

Wiltshire Trading Limited

Applicant (hcal 17/2007)

Hsu May Chun, Katherine

1st Applicant (hcal 18/2007)

CS Secretaries Limited

2nd Applicant (hcal 19/2007) / 3rd Plaintiff (hcmp 1175/2007)

Loong Po Managment Limited

3rd Applicant (hcal 19/2007) / 4th Plaintiff (hcmp 1175/2007)

Secretary for Justice

1st Respondent / Defendant

Commissioner of Police

2nd Respondent

Leung King Hung

3rd Respondent (detective Senior Inspector)

A Magistrate sitting at Eastern Magistracy on 16 January 2007

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) Consolidated With HCMP 1175/2007 (letter of Request) / Decision on Costs After Substantive Judgment Dismissing Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the traditional rule that costs follow the event remains a general rule after civil justice reform
  2. 2 Allocation of costs for specific interlocutory applications (leave hearing, discovery, amendment, letters of request)
  3. 3 Appropriate reduction or allocation of costs where public interest or partial success applies

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that costs discretion post-reform is flexible: follow-the-event is a starting point not a rule; the court must allocate costs to achieve overall justice by considering public interest, conduct, partial successes and specific interlocutory outcomes. Applying those principles the court awarded respondents costs for specified interlocutory appearances and ordered the applicants to pay 60% of respondents' costs (party and party) generally, awarded applicants costs for the successful amendment application, and required respondents to pay 100% of applicants' costs in respect of costs reserved on 30 August 2007; costs in HCMP 1157/2007 remain in the cause and no further order...

Court Disposition

Costs reserved were allocated to achieve overall justice: specified interlocutory costs awarded to respective parties and overall percentages ordered for taxation on party and party basis.

Orders

  • Respondents to have their costs of the appearance ordered by Hartmann J on 22 March 2007
  • Respondents to have their costs of resisting discovery (28 June 2007)