LAU MAN LOON v. EXCELIKO ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER

LAU MAN LOON v. EXCELIKO ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Plaintiff and to apportion those costs between the two defendants, rejecting a gross sum for the Plaintiff's costs and ordering taxation if not agreed; it found the 2nd Defendant's conduct justified ordering her to pay 40% of the Plaintiff's costs and separately ordered the 2nd Defendant to pay a gross sum of $50,000 to the 1st Defendant for costs occasioned by her application.

Citation
LAU MAN LOON v. EXCELIKO ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Lau Man Loon; 1st Defendant: Exceliko Enterprises Limited; 2nd Defendant: Leung Shok Ying
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2001
Case Number
HCA9320/1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Judgment on Costs (post Judgment Hearing)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant with declarations and monetary relief; Plaintiff's claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed; 2nd Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs orders as set out.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Contract, Deposit Recovery, Costs Allocation, Gross Sum Costs Order, Severally Liable Costs, Legal Aid Stay
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Costs Equity Rescission of Contract Deposit Recovery Costs Allocation Gross Sum Costs Order +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lau Man Loon

Plaintiff

Exceliko Enterprises Limited

1st Defendant

Leung Shok Ying

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Judgment on Costs (post Judgment Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 entitlement to costs for the successful party
  2. 2 extent to which 1st and 2nd Defendants should bear Plaintiff's costs
  3. 3 appropriateness of a gross sum order for different parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Plaintiff and to apportion those costs between the two defendants, rejecting a gross sum for the Plaintiff's costs and ordering taxation if not agreed; it found the 2nd Defendant's conduct justified ordering her to pay 40% of the Plaintiff's costs and separately ordered the 2nd Defendant to pay a gross sum of $50,000 to the 1st Defendant for costs occasioned by her application.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant with declarations and monetary relief; Plaintiff's claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed; 2nd Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs orders as set out.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Plaintiff effectively rescinded the Agreement.
  • 1st Defendant to return $490,000 to the Plaintiff (Plaintiff's half-share of deposits).