WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Although there were discovery shortcomings and some bad or abandoned points, the court found no deliberate concealment nor conduct sufficiently oppressive or unreasonable to justify depriving the successful Defendants of costs; in the circumstances of complex professional negligence litigation errors were understandable and the Defendants are entitled to full costs to be taxed on a party and party basis.

Citation
WHARF PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wharf Properties Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: The Wharf (Holdings) Limited; 1st Defendant: Eric Cumine Associates (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 February 1988
Case Number
HCA13431/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence (damages) / Application for Costs After Judgment
Outcome
Application to deprive Defendants of costs dismissed; Defendants awarded their costs
Legal Topics
Costs Allocation, Discovery Obligations, Pleadings, Abandonment of Points
Source Language
EN
Civil Professional Negligence Costs Discovery Costs Allocation Discovery Obligations Pleadings Abandonment of Points

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wharf Properties Limited

1st Plaintiff

The Wharf (Holdings) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Eric Cumine Associates (a firm)

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence (damages) / Application for Costs After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the successful Defendants ought to be deprived of costs for alleged failures in discovery and conduct at trial
  2. 2 Whether deliberate concealment of a Building Appeals Tribunal decision occurred
  3. 3 Appropriate basis of taxation of costs (common fund v. party and party)

Ratio Decidendi

Although there were discovery shortcomings and some bad or abandoned points, the court found no deliberate concealment nor conduct sufficiently oppressive or unreasonable to justify depriving the successful Defendants of costs; in the circumstances of complex professional negligence litigation errors were understandable and the Defendants are entitled to full costs to be taxed on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Application to deprive Defendants of costs dismissed; Defendants awarded their costs

Orders

  • Costs of the Defendants to be taxed and paid by the Plaintiffs
  • Taxation to be on a party and party basis in accordance with the ruling given the previous day