HEYBRIDGE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE AND ANOTHER

HEYBRIDGE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE AND ANOTHER

The master was entitled to consider the plaintiffs' delay and conduct in failing to provide particulars until shortly before the hearing; given that necessity to issue the summons and press the application, it was not unreasonable to award the defendants the costs of the application and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
HEYBRIDGE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HEYBRIDGE LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CHO KWAN LOK; 3rd Plaintiff: SUN SHINE TOYS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE; 2nd Defendant: BILLION ORIENTAL LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2004
Case Number
HCA9563/2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Costs Order (civil) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; master's costs order affirmed
Legal Topics
Further and Better Particulars, Masters Discretion, Costs Orders, Pre‑hearing Conduct
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Pleadings Appeal Further and Better Particulars Masters Discretion Costs Orders Pre‑hearing Conduct

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

Parties

HEYBRIDGE LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CHO KWAN LOK

2nd Plaintiff

SUN SHINE TOYS LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE

1st Defendant

BILLION ORIENTAL LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Costs Order (civil) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the master's costs order was unreasonable or an error of law
  2. 2 Whether costs should be apportioned where some particulars were disallowed or abandoned
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' pre‑hearing conduct justified an award of costs to the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The master was entitled to consider the plaintiffs' delay and conduct in failing to provide particulars until shortly before the hearing; given that necessity to issue the summons and press the application, it was not unreasonable to award the defendants the costs of the application and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; master's costs order affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the application to the defendants with certificate for counsel