HONNIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. KWAN FUNG KAM

HONNIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. KWAN FUNG KAM

Section 14(3)(e) of the High Court Ordinance should not be read to require leave to appeal a master's costs order to a judge in chambers; the master erred in finding prejudice and in ordering costs against a successful plaintiff where no misconduct or real prejudice was shown, so the costs order must be set aside and substituted with no order as to costs for the summary judgment proceedings.

Citation
HONNIN DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. KWAN FUNG KAM
Parties
Plaintiff: Honnin Development Limited; Defendant: Ho Ming; Defendant: Sze To Wai Ling
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 December 2000
Case Number
HCA17153/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (sale and Purchase Dispute; Summary Judgment; Appeal on Costs) / Appeal From Master's Costs Order to Judge in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal allowed on costs; master's costs order set aside and replaced with no order as to costs for the summary judgment proceedings; plaintiff awarded costs of the appeals (nisi).
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs, Declaratory Relief, Rescission, Possession, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Equity Summary Judgment Costs Declaratory Relief Rescission +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Honnin Development Limited

Plaintiff

Ho Ming

Defendant

Sze To Wai Ling

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (sale and Purchase Dispute; Summary Judgment; Appeal on Costs) / Appeal From Master's Costs Order to Judge in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave is required to appeal a master's costs order to a judge in chambers under s.14(3)(e) High Court Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the master demonstrably erred in ordering costs against a successful party
  3. 3 Whether the late amendment to the Order 14 summons caused prejudice justifying costs against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(3)(e) of the High Court Ordinance should not be read to require leave to appeal a master's costs order to a judge in chambers; the master erred in finding prejudice and in ordering costs against a successful plaintiff where no misconduct or real prejudice was shown, so the costs order must be set aside and substituted with no order as to costs for the summary judgment proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on costs; master's costs order set aside and replaced with no order as to costs for the summary judgment proceedings; plaintiff awarded costs of the appeals (nisi).

Orders

  • Set aside the master's costs order in both actions.
  • There shall be no order as to costs for the summary judgment proceedings below in both actions.