HKSAR v. CHU KAM TIM AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHU KAM TIM AND ANOTHER

First appellant's appeal allowed and question of costs (including solicitors' bills for both appellants) referred to the Taxing Master for assessment because the fixed award of HK$5,000 was inadequate and the bills showed duplication; second appellant's appeal dismissed because the magistrate properly found his conduct brought suspicion upon himself and therefore costs were rightly refused.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHU KAM TIM AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: CHU KAM-TIM; 2nd Appellant: LAM CHUN-TUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2000
Case Number
HCMA934/1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Magistrate to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (21 March 2000)
Outcome
First appellant's appeal allowed in respect of costs and referred to Taxing Master for assessment; second appellant's appeal dismissed and no costs awarded to him.
Legal Topics
Costs on Acquittal, Taxation of Costs, Judicial Discretion, Conduct Affecting Entitlement to Costs
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Costs Law Appeals Costs on Acquittal Taxation of Costs Judicial Discretion Conduct Affecting Entitlement to Costs

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

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

CHU KAM-TIM

1st Appellant

LAM CHUN-TUNG

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal From Magistrate to Court of First Instance / Judgment on Appeal (21 March 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's fixed costs award of HK$5,000 for the 1st appellant was adequate
  2. 2 Whether an acquitted defendant who 'brought suspicion upon himself' is entitled to an award of costs
  3. 3 Whether solicitor and counsel bills showing duplication should be referred to the Taxing Master for assessment

Ratio Decidendi

First appellant's appeal allowed and question of costs (including solicitors' bills for both appellants) referred to the Taxing Master for assessment because the fixed award of HK$5,000 was inadequate and the bills showed duplication; second appellant's appeal dismissed because the magistrate properly found his conduct brought suspicion upon himself and therefore costs were rightly refused.

Court Disposition

First appellant's appeal allowed in respect of costs and referred to Taxing Master for assessment; second appellant's appeal dismissed and no costs awarded to him.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal in respect of the 1st appellant and refer the question of costs to the Taxing Master for taxation
  • Include in that referral the bills of costs from the solicitors produced to the magistrate (the bills relating to each appellant) for assessment, having regard to potential duplication