WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

The court exercised its discretion under the post‑reform rules and ordered that, balancing public interest considerations, partial successes of the Applicants and misconduct by respondents on some facts, overall justice requires that the Applicants pay 60% of the Respondents' costs (to be taxed on a party and party basis), the Respondents pay 100% of the Applicants' costs for the 30 August 2007 reserved item, the Applicants recover costs for the successful amendment application and the leave hearing, and no separate order can now be made in respect of HCMP 1157/2007 because its costs were ordered to be in the cause and that order is absolute.

Citation
WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant / 1st Plaintiff: Chan Mei Yiu, Paddy; Applicant / Plaintiff: Harmony Gold Limited; Applicant (hcal 17/2007): Wiltshire Trading Limited; Applicant (hcal 18/2007): Hsu May Chun, Katherine; Applicant / 3rd Plaintiff: CS Secretaries Limited; Applicant / 4th Plaintiff: Loong Po Managment Limited; 1st Respondent / Defendant: Secretary for Justice; 2nd Respondent: Commissioner of Police; 3rd Respondent: Leung King Hung, Detective Senior Inspector; 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
HCAL17/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (hcal 16 19/2007); Related HCMP 1175/2007 (letter of Request) / Decision on Costs Following Dismissal of Judicial Review and Related Interlocutory Proceedings
Outcome
Court ordered apportioned costs: Applicants to pay part of Respondents' costs; specified exceptions and awards in favour of Applicants for certain interlocutory successes; no further alteration to costs already ordered 'in the cause' for HCMP 1157/2007.
Legal Topics
Costs, Letter of Request, Discovery, Public Interest Litigation, Search Powers, Mutual Legal Assistance Ordinance, Injunction
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Mutual Legal Assistance Judicial Review Costs Letter of Request Discovery +4 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Mei Yiu, Paddy

1st Applicant / 1st Plaintiff

Harmony Gold Limited

Applicant / Plaintiff

Wiltshire Trading Limited

Applicant (hcal 17/2007)

Hsu May Chun, Katherine

Applicant (hcal 18/2007)

CS Secretaries Limited

Applicant / 3rd Plaintiff

Loong Po Managment Limited

Applicant / 4th Plaintiff

Secretary for Justice

1st Respondent / Defendant

Commissioner of Police

2nd Respondent

Leung King Hung, Detective Senior Inspector

3rd Respondent

A Magistrate sitting at Eastern Magistracy on 16 January 2007

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (hcal 16 19/2007); Related HCMP 1175/2007 (letter of Request) / Decision on Costs Following Dismissal of Judicial Review and Related Interlocutory Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event after civil justice reform
  2. 2 Allocation of costs in public law/judicial review proceedings
  3. 3 Whether costs in related HCMP (letter of request) could be varied after order that costs be in the cause

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under the post‑reform rules and ordered that, balancing public interest considerations, partial successes of the Applicants and misconduct by respondents on some facts, overall justice requires that the Applicants pay 60% of the Respondents' costs (to be taxed on a party and party basis), the Respondents pay 100% of the Applicants' costs for the 30 August 2007 reserved item, the Applicants recover costs for the successful amendment application and the leave hearing, and no separate order can now be made in respect of HCMP 1157/2007 because its costs were ordered to be in the cause and that order is absolute.

Court Disposition

Court ordered apportioned costs: Applicants to pay part of Respondents' costs; specified exceptions and awards in favour of Applicants for certain interlocutory successes; no further alteration to costs already ordered 'in the cause' for HCMP 1157/2007.

Orders

  • Respondents awarded 60% of their costs against the Applicants to be taxed on a party and party basis
  • Applicants awarded their costs of and incidental to the orders made on 3 August 2007 (successful amendment application)