WONG TAT LUN EDDIE AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI HO JIMMY AND OTHERS

WONG TAT LUN EDDIE AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI HO JIMMY AND OTHERS

General leave to appeal was granted because the court found arguable errors of law or principle affecting the Costs Order: specifically a reasonable prospect of success that Order 62 r 6(2) was not sufficiently considered and that the Removal Application's classification under Re Buckton could be recharacterised, warranting appellate consideration.

Citation
WONG TAT LUN EDDIE AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI HO JIMMY AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wong Tat Lun Eddie; 2nd Plaintiff: Wong Oi Lun; 3rd Plaintiff: Wong Tai Wai David Jasper; 1st Defendant: Wong Chi Ho Jimmy (as the sole executor of the estate of Wong Chung Ming, deceased); 2nd Defendant: Cheung Siu Fung; 3rd Defendant: The Personal Representative(s) of Chan Lau Kong, deceased; 4th Defendant: Wong Man Ha Monica
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 April 2015
Case Number
HCMP2391/2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (costs/removal Application) / Leave to Appeal on Costs (decision on Granting Leave)
Outcome
General leave to appeal granted to 1st Defendant against the Costs Order on all grounds
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Leave to Appeal, Order 62 Rule 6(2), Re Buckton Classification, Removal of Executor/trustee
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Estate Administration Appeal Costs Order Leave to Appeal Order 62 Rule 6(2) Re Buckton Classification +1 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Tat Lun Eddie

1st Plaintiff

Wong Oi Lun

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Tai Wai David Jasper

3rd Plaintiff

Wong Chi Ho Jimmy (as the sole executor of the estate of Wong Chung Ming, deceased)

1st Defendant

Cheung Siu Fung

2nd Defendant

The Personal Representative(s) of Chan Lau Kong, deceased

3rd Defendant

Wong Man Ha Monica

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (costs/removal Application) / Leave to Appeal on Costs (decision on Granting Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in principle in ordering D1 to pay the plaintiffs' costs for the first period
  2. 2 Whether the court failed to take sufficient account of Order 62 rule 6(2)
  3. 3 Whether the continuation of the Removal Application fell within the second or third class of cases under Re Buckton affecting costs

Ratio Decidendi

General leave to appeal was granted because the court found arguable errors of law or principle affecting the Costs Order: specifically a reasonable prospect of success that Order 62 r 6(2) was not sufficiently considered and that the Removal Application's classification under Re Buckton could be recharacterised, warranting appellate consideration.

Court Disposition

General leave to appeal granted to 1st Defendant against the Costs Order on all grounds

Orders

  • General leave to the 1st Defendant to appeal the Costs Order on all three grounds
  • Brief reasons provided on the 2nd and 3rd Grounds; original Costs Order remains subject to appeal