KING LUCKY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. NICEWAY CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER

KING LUCKY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. NICEWAY CONSULTANTS LTD AND ANOTHER

The application for summary assessment was appropriate because the costs of the interlocutory application were sufficiently self-contained; the certificate for two counsel was refused because the matter lacked sufficient complexity to justify it; consequential directions were given for the filing of a cost statement and grounds in opposition, and no order as to costs of the variation application was made.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 659
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KING LUCKY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: WING SMART CONSTRUCTION LIMITED; 1st Defendant: NICEWAY CONSULTANTS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: GOLDEN TARGET INVESTMENT (GROUP) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 April 2020
Case Number
HCA771/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Injunction Application / Post Judgment Costs Application / Summary Assessment Under Order 62 R 9 a
Outcome
Certificate for two counsel refused; summary assessment of costs ordered; timetable set for cost statement and response; no order as to costs of this application.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Summary Assessment of Costs, Certificate for Two Counsel, Costs Nisi
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Interlocutory Injunction Summary Assessment of Costs Certificate for Two Counsel Costs Nisi

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KING LUCKY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

WING SMART CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

NICEWAY CONSULTANTS LIMITED

1st Defendant

GOLDEN TARGET INVESTMENT (GROUP) LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Injunction Application / Post Judgment Costs Application / Summary Assessment Under Order 62 R 9 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary assessment of costs under Order 62 rule 9A is appropriate for this interlocutory application
  2. 2 Whether a certificate for two counsel should be granted for the costs application
  3. 3 Whether costs of the costs-variation application should be awarded to either party

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary assessment was appropriate because the costs of the interlocutory application were sufficiently self-contained; the certificate for two counsel was refused because the matter lacked sufficient complexity to justify it; consequential directions were given for the filing of a cost statement and grounds in opposition, and no order as to costs of the variation application was made.

Court Disposition

Certificate for two counsel refused; summary assessment of costs ordered; timetable set for cost statement and response; no order as to costs of this application.

Orders

  • Certificate for two counsel refused
  • Summary assessment of costs ordered pursuant to Order 62 r 9A