KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN

KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN

The costs order of 26 February 2006 stands because it was made after a full hearing where all circumstances were considered, no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify variation, and the usual practice is to award costs to the plaintiff where the defendant has been at fault.

Citation
KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN
Parties
Plaintiff: Ko Sin Yun; Defendant: Chan Chuen
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Case Number
DCCJ6693/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Setting Aside Regular Judgment / Post Hearing Application to Vary Costs Order
Outcome
Application to vary the costs order refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Variation of Orders, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction to Vary Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Setting Aside Judgment Variation of Orders Costs Orders Jurisdiction to Vary Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ko Sin Yun

Plaintiff

Chan Chuen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Setting Aside Regular Judgment / Post Hearing Application to Vary Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary its costs order made on 26 February 2006
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify varying the costs order
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the subsequent hearing should be borne by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order of 26 February 2006 stands because it was made after a full hearing where all circumstances were considered, no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify variation, and the usual practice is to award costs to the plaintiff where the defendant has been at fault.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the costs order refused

Orders

  • Application to vary costs refused and previous costs order affirmed
  • Costs of the hearing on 21 March 2006 to be borne by the 1st defendant, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel