HKSAR v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD AND OTHERS

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate misapprehended and did not properly apply s.3(2) Cap.492 by failing to consider ordering that the costs be taxed; the fixed aggregate award of $9,000 was inadequate to reasonably compensate the appellants for a three day trial and the proper order is that the appellants' costs be taxed including the costs of the appeal.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD; 2nd Appellant: CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD; 3rd Appellant: CHUN WO CONTRACTORS LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2003
Case Number
HCMA134/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance (cap. 492), Taxation of Costs, Magistrate Discretionary Powers, Quantum of Costs Awards
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Costs Law Procedural Law Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance (cap. 492) Taxation of Costs Magistrate Discretionary Powers Quantum of Costs Awards

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD

1st Appellant

CHUN WO FOUNDATIONS LTD

2nd Appellant

CHUN WO CONTRACTORS LTD

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate misapplied s.3(2) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance (Cap. 492) when awarding fixed costs
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate should have ordered that the costs be taxed rather than awarding fixed sums
  3. 3 Whether the fixed awards of $2,000, $3,000 and $4,000 were an adequate and reasonable compensation for expenses incurred

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate misapprehended and did not properly apply s.3(2) Cap.492 by failing to consider ordering that the costs be taxed; the fixed aggregate award of $9,000 was inadequate to reasonably compensate the appellants for a three day trial and the proper order is that the appellants' costs be taxed including the costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the Magistrate's fixed costs awards and order that the appellants' costs be taxed
  • Include the costs of this appeal in the taxation