HO KWOK MING v. WONG HUNG HO AND OTHERS

HO KWOK MING v. WONG HUNG HO AND OTHERS

The court exercised its broad discretion by assessing the merits of the interlocutory injunction at the time of the Summons, concluded the plaintiff had a high degree of assurance of success and that the 1st defendant opposed the application strenuously and lost on the material interlocutory issues; accordingly the costs order nisi was made absolute and the 1st defendant was ordered to bear the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the Summons and the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed (with legal aid taxation for the plaintiff).

Citation
[2022] HKDC 614
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Case Number
DCCJ5031/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Action: Interlocutory Injunction and Variation of Costs Order Nisi / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (interlocutory Stage)
Outcome
Costs order nisi made absolute; 1st defendant ordered to bear plaintiff's costs of the Summons and of the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed; plaintiff's costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Costs, Variation of Costs Order Nisi, Mandatory Injunction, Balance of Convenience, Holding the Ring, Delay and Non Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Equity Injunctions Interlocutory Costs Variation of Costs Order Nisi Mandatory Injunction Balance of Convenience +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st defendant

1st Defendant

2nd defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action: Interlocutory Injunction and Variation of Costs Order Nisi / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (interlocutory Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied to put costs in the cause or otherwise
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunction costs should be ordered immediately or reserved to trial
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's withdrawal of an interim-interim application constituted a concession affecting costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its broad discretion by assessing the merits of the interlocutory injunction at the time of the Summons, concluded the plaintiff had a high degree of assurance of success and that the 1st defendant opposed the application strenuously and lost on the material interlocutory issues; accordingly the costs order nisi was made absolute and the 1st defendant was ordered to bear the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the Summons and the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed (with legal aid taxation for the plaintiff).

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi made absolute; 1st defendant ordered to bear plaintiff's costs of the Summons and of the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed; plaintiff's costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

Orders

  • Costs order nisi made absolute
  • The 1st defendant shall bear the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the Summons filed on 29 October 2021, including counsel's fees, to be taxed if not agreed, with legal aid taxation for the plaintiff's own costs