LOU SIU PING AND ANOTHER v. LAM TSZ MAN WOO PUI KI, KENNETH t/a KENNETH WOO & CO (A FIRM)

LOU SIU PING AND ANOTHER v. LAM TSZ MAN WOO PUI KI, KENNETH t/a KENNETH WOO & CO (A FIRM)

The costs order was varied because the plaintiffs' pleaded and particularised claims at the time of instituting proceedings totalled $874,000 and they expressly disavowed other losses in reply to particulars; therefore they had no reasonable prospect of recovering over $1,000,000 at commencement and the costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LOU SIU PING AND ANOTHER v. LAM TSZ MAN WOO PUI KI, KENNETH t/a KENNETH WOO & CO (A FIRM)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lou Siu Ping; Plaintiff: Tam Sin Yee; 1st Defendant: Lam Tsz Man; 2nd Defendant: Woo Pui Ki, Kenneth
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Case Number
HCA506/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil High Court (court of First Instance) / Post‑judgment Variation of Costs Order
Outcome
Order for costs made on 16 May 2012 varied: the 2nd defendant (Woo) must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the action, to be taxed on the District Court scale if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
Legal Topics
Costs Order, District Court Scale, Reasonable Prospects Test, Pleading of Damages
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Property Pleadings Costs Order District Court Scale Reasonable Prospects Test Pleading of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lou Siu Ping

Plaintiff

Tam Sin Yee

Plaintiff

Lam Tsz Man

1st Defendant

Woo Pui Ki, Kenneth

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil High Court (court of First Instance) / Post‑judgment Variation of Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order should be varied so that costs are assessed on the District Court scale
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had reasonable prospects of recovering in excess of $1,000,000 at the time the writ was issued
  3. 3 Whether unpleaded damages can be relied upon to justify High Court venue and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order was varied because the plaintiffs' pleaded and particularised claims at the time of instituting proceedings totalled $874,000 and they expressly disavowed other losses in reply to particulars; therefore they had no reasonable prospect of recovering over $1,000,000 at commencement and the costs between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are to be taxed on the District Court scale.

Court Disposition

Order for costs made on 16 May 2012 varied: the 2nd defendant (Woo) must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the action, to be taxed on the District Court scale if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.

Orders

  • The costs of the action between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant (Woo Pui Ki, Kenneth) are to be paid by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiffs, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed on the District Court scale if not agreed.