WEALTH METAL FACTORY LTD v. KINGSBRIGHT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO LTD

WEALTH METAL FACTORY LTD v. KINGSBRIGHT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO LTD

Applying the court's discretionary principles under s29 Cap 338 and Order 62 r5(1), and having regard to the conduct of the parties and relevant authorities, the court varied the order nisi so that the defendant's costs of the appeal (including this application) are the defendant's costs in the cause of the new trial and the costs of the original trial are in the cause of the new trial; payments into court made as security were ordered released to the defendant.

Citation
WEALTH METAL FACTORY LTD v. KINGSBRIGHT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/claimant: Wealth Metal Factory Limited 同發寶工業製品有限公司; Defendant/appellant: Kingsbright Technology (Shenzhen) Co Limited 明輝光源科技（深圳）有限公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Case Number
HCSA6/2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Ruling on Costs Following Appeal Allowed and Remitted for a New Hearing
Outcome
Application to vary costs order nisi granted in part; costs order varied and payments into court released to defendant
Legal Topics
Costs Discretion, Order Nisi, Remittal for Retrial, Payments Into Court, Small Claims Tribunal Appeal
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Appeal Security for Costs Costs Discretion Order Nisi Remittal for Retrial +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wealth Metal Factory Limited 同發寶工業製品有限公司

Plaintiff/claimant

Kingsbright Technology (Shenzhen) Co Limited 明輝光源科技（深圳）有限公司

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Ruling on Costs Following Appeal Allowed and Remitted for a New Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied so that the plaintiff bears the costs of the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the unsuccessful party should bear costs where the appeal is allowed and a retrial is ordered
  3. 3 Whether payments made into court as security should be released to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the court's discretionary principles under s29 Cap 338 and Order 62 r5(1), and having regard to the conduct of the parties and relevant authorities, the court varied the order nisi so that the defendant's costs of the appeal (including this application) are the defendant's costs in the cause of the new trial and the costs of the original trial are in the cause of the new trial; payments into court made as security were ordered released to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs order nisi granted in part; costs order varied and payments into court released to defendant

Orders

  • Defendant's costs of the appeal, including costs of this application, to be the defendant's costs in the cause of the new trial
  • Costs of the original trial to be in the cause of the new trial