GROUP STAR LTD v. LAM SUI KEI JOSEPH AND OTHERS

GROUP STAR LTD v. LAM SUI KEI JOSEPH AND OTHERS

The application to make the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay the Plaintiff's costs of the action against the 1st Defendant was dismissed because the sealed default judgment against the 1st Defendant rendered the court functus officio as to that judgment and there is no jurisdiction to vary it, and because the authority for allocating costs in the sanctioned payment context only applies where defendants are sued jointly or severally, whereas here the claims against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were pleaded as alternative causes of action.

Citation
GROUP STAR LTD v. LAM SUI KEI JOSEPH AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: GROUP STAR LIMITED; 1st Defendant: LAM SUI KEI JOSEPH; 2nd Defendant: ALFRED LAM, KEUNG & KO (a firm); 3rd Defendant: WAT & CO. (a firm)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Case Number
DCCJ5378/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (contract and Professional Negligence) / Application for Costs Following Acceptance of Sanctioned Payment; Decision on Summons
Outcome
Application partly dismissed and partly granted: application to order 2nd and 3rd Defendants to pay costs of action against 1st Defendant dismissed; orders made for payment and vacation of trial dates and for 2nd and 3rd Defendants to pay Plaintiff's costs of actions against them.
Legal Topics
Costs, Sanctioned Payment, Default Judgment, Functus Officio, Jurisdiction, Alternative Claims Vs Joint and Several
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Professional Negligence Sanctioned Payment Default Judgment Functus Officio Jurisdiction +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GROUP STAR LIMITED

Plaintiff

LAM SUI KEI JOSEPH

1st Defendant

ALFRED LAM, KEUNG & KO (a firm)

2nd Defendant

WAT & CO. (a firm)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (contract and Professional Negligence) / Application for Costs Following Acceptance of Sanctioned Payment; Decision on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 2nd and 3rd Defendants can be ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the action against the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the court can vary a sealed default judgment as to costs
  3. 3 Whether the jurisdiction to order a paying-in party to bear costs of a non-paying party applies where claims are pleaded alternatively rather than jointly or severally

Ratio Decidendi

The application to make the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay the Plaintiff's costs of the action against the 1st Defendant was dismissed because the sealed default judgment against the 1st Defendant rendered the court functus officio as to that judgment and there is no jurisdiction to vary it, and because the authority for allocating costs in the sanctioned payment context only applies where defendants are sued jointly or severally, whereas here the claims against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were pleaded as alternative causes of action.

Court Disposition

Application partly dismissed and partly granted: application to order 2nd and 3rd Defendants to pay costs of action against 1st Defendant dismissed; orders made for payment and vacation of trial dates and for 2nd and 3rd Defendants to pay Plaintiff's costs of actions against them.

Orders

  • Dismissed application that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay the Plaintiff's costs of its action against the 1st Defendant
  • Order that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants pay the Plaintiff's costs of its actions against them, to be taxed if not agreed