HKSAR v. TANG KA HUNG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. TANG KA HUNG AND ANOTHER

Wasted costs orders against Mr Butt were set aside because his conduct, acting on client instructions and pursuing arguable applications based on the incomplete CCTV clip and alleged YouTube material, did not amount to the serious improper act or serious misconduct required to justify a personal wasted costs order;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. TANG KA HUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: TANG KA HUNG; 2nd Appellant: ANTHONY BUTT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2010
Case Number
HCMA239/2010
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Wasted costs orders against Mr Butt discharged; costs awarded to 1st Appellant for specified days; no order for costs on stay and recusal; apportionment of costs of costs hearing and costs on appeal fixed.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Recusal, Stay for Non Disclosure, Costs Apportionment, CCTV Disclosure, Hearsay
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Costs Evidence Professional Conduct of Advocates Wasted Costs Recusal Stay for Non Disclosure Costs Apportionment +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

TANG KA HUNG

1st Appellant

ANTHONY BUTT

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether wasted costs orders against counsel should be made personally
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's remarks required recusal
  3. 3 Whether a permanent stay for non-disclosure of CCTV material was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Wasted costs orders against Mr Butt were set aside because his conduct, acting on client instructions and pursuing arguable applications based on the incomplete CCTV clip and alleged YouTube material, did not amount to the serious improper act or serious misconduct required to justify a personal wasted costs order; costs relating to plea day, trial day and certain adjournments were properly awarded to the 1st Appellant and apportionment of hearing costs was adjusted as stated.

Court Disposition

Wasted costs orders against Mr Butt discharged; costs awarded to 1st Appellant for specified days; no order for costs on stay and recusal; apportionment of costs of costs hearing and costs on appeal fixed.

Orders

  • Wasted costs orders against Mr Butt personally discharged
  • 1st Appellant awarded costs for plea day (28 November 2008) and trial day (11 December 2009) as ordered by the Magistrate