DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

The court held that the 5% reduction in the costs order nisi already accounted for the plaintiff's partial failure on the Order 14 application; the affidavits and preparatory work were relevant to the Order 14A issue so costs should not be split or reserved, and the applications to vary the costs order nisi were dismissed and the order nisi made absolute with costs to the plaintiff.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 978
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: ADAM INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 June 2020
Case Number
HCA365/2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (post Hearing Costs Application) / Decision on Application
Outcome
Applications to vary the costs order nisi dismissed; costs order made absolute in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Order 14, Order 14 a, Summary Judgment, Costs Order Nisi, Unlawful Clog, Allocation of Costs, Summary Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Injunctions/stay Evidence Order 14 Order 14 a Summary Judgment +4 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

ADAM INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (post Hearing Costs Application) / Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied to allocate costs between the Order 14 (summary judgment) and Order 14A applications
  2. 2 Whether preparatory affidavit evidence was necessarily related only to the summary judgment application or also to the Order 14A application
  3. 3 Whether costs of the Order 14A hearing should be reserved pending trial outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 5% reduction in the costs order nisi already accounted for the plaintiff's partial failure on the Order 14 application; the affidavits and preparatory work were relevant to the Order 14A issue so costs should not be split or reserved, and the applications to vary the costs order nisi were dismissed and the order nisi made absolute with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Applications to vary the costs order nisi dismissed; costs order made absolute in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The 1st defendant and ADAM INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED to pay the costs of the Summons (95% awarded to the plaintiff as per the costs order nisi)
  • Applications to vary the costs order nisi dismissed and the applicants to pay the costs of those applications to the plaintiff with certificate for counsel