WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Defendants failed to demonstrate the presence of special and unusual features sufficient to justify taxation on the common fund basis; therefore their application for common fund costs is refused and costs are to be taxed on the ordinary (party and party) basis, to be taxed from the foot of the order dated 29 July 1986.

Citation
WHARF PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. ERIC CUMINE ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Wharf Properties Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: The Wharf (Holdings) Limited; 1st Defendant: Eric Cumine Associates, Architects Engineers & Surveyors (A Firm); Defendant: Others
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 February 1988
Case Number
HCA13431/1983
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Civil Claim / Costs Application (ruling on Taxation of Costs)
Outcome
Application for taxation of costs on common fund basis refused; costs to be taxed on party and party basis.
Legal Topics
Common Fund Costs, Taxation of Costs, Party and Party Costs, Indemnity, Severance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Professional Negligence Common Fund Costs Taxation of Costs Party and Party Costs Indemnity Severance

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wharf Properties Limited

1st Plaintiff

The Wharf (Holdings) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Eric Cumine Associates, Architects Engineers & Surveyors (A Firm)

1st Defendant

Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Civil Claim / Costs Application (ruling on Taxation of Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be taxed on the common fund basis rather than party and party
  2. 2 Whether there were special and unusual features justifying common fund taxation
  3. 3 Proper date from which costs should be taxed

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to demonstrate the presence of special and unusual features sufficient to justify taxation on the common fund basis; therefore their application for common fund costs is refused and costs are to be taxed on the ordinary (party and party) basis, to be taxed from the foot of the order dated 29 July 1986.

Court Disposition

Application for taxation of costs on common fund basis refused; costs to be taxed on party and party basis.

Orders

  • Application for common fund costs refused
  • Costs to be taxed on party and party basis