RE MADAM TAN

RE MADAM TAN

The receiving party failed to act with reasonable speed after the costs orders; there were 8–9 months unaccounted for and the receiving party did not explain delays between lodging drafts and following up. Under RHC O62 r22(3) and r7(5) the taxing master may reduce taxed costs for undue delay and proof of prejudice is not a prerequisite; accordingly the appropriate sanction on these facts is a global reduction of 8% to each taxed bill with re-instatement of previously taxed-off items relating to costs of taxation and a further hearing to determine those items.

Citation
RE MADAM TAN
Parties
Plaintiffs (paying Parties): Various financial institutions; 3rd Defendant / Receiving Party / Applicant: Madam Tan Bo Bo Brenda alias Tan Bo Bo
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 1999
Case Number
HCA6665/1994
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation / Review Heard and Reasons for Decision Handed Down
Outcome
Review allowed in part: global reduction of 8% imposed on each of the four taxed bills; items relating to costs of taxation re-instated; further hearing ordered to resolve re-instated items and to determine costs order nisi.
Legal Topics
Delay in Filing Bills of Costs, Taxing Master's Discretion, Discharge of Charging Orders, Sanctions for Undue Delay, Proof of Prejudice
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Land/charging Orders Delay in Filing Bills of Costs Taxing Master's Discretion Discharge of Charging Orders Sanctions for Undue Delay Proof of Prejudice

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

Parties

Various financial institutions

Plaintiffs (paying Parties)

Madam Tan Bo Bo Brenda alias Tan Bo Bo

3rd Defendant / Receiving Party / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Review of Taxation / Review Heard and Reasons for Decision Handed Down

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in filing the bills of costs was undue or inexcusable
  2. 2 Whether proof of prejudice is required before exercising discretion to reduce costs for delay
  3. 3 What the appropriate sanction is for undue delay (global percentage reduction or disallowance of taxation items)

Ratio Decidendi

The receiving party failed to act with reasonable speed after the costs orders; there were 8–9 months unaccounted for and the receiving party did not explain delays between lodging drafts and following up. Under RHC O62 r22(3) and r7(5) the taxing master may reduce taxed costs for undue delay and proof of prejudice is not a prerequisite; accordingly the appropriate sanction on these facts is a global reduction of 8% to each taxed bill with re-instatement of previously taxed-off items relating to costs of taxation and a further hearing to determine those items.

Court Disposition

Review allowed in part: global reduction of 8% imposed on each of the four taxed bills; items relating to costs of taxation re-instated; further hearing ordered to resolve re-instated items and to determine costs order nisi.

Orders

  • Global reduction of 8% of the taxed costs in each of the four bills
  • All items relating to the costs of taxation that had previously been taxed off are re-instated