THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY v. 曹琳 AND ANOTHER

THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE SISTERS OF THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY v. 曹琳 AND ANOTHER

The application to vary the Order Nisi was dismissed because D1's counter-offer was not a sanctioned offer, was vague and did not address costs, Legal Aid status alone does not justify departing from Order 62 r 5(1)(d), and having dismissed D1's counterclaim the original apportionment (P to pay 80% of costs) was fair and appropriate; therefore no variation of the Order Nisi was warranted.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3146
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (P); 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant (D1); 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Case Number
HCMP2233/2020
Procedural Posture
Summary Possession Under Order 113, HCMP 2233/2020 / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order (decision on Costs)
Outcome
D1's application to vary the Order Nisi dismissed; Order Nisi made absolute.
Legal Topics
Summary Possession, Without Prejudice Save as to Costs Offers, Sanctioned Offers, Order Nisi, Variation of Costs Order, Costs Taxation
Source Language
EN
Civil Property Costs Legal Aid Summary Possession Without Prejudice Save as to Costs Offers Sanctioned Offers Order Nisi +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (P)

Plaintiff

1st Defendant (D1)

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Possession Under Order 113, HCMP 2233/2020 / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order (decision on Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Order Nisi should be varied to require the Plaintiff to bear 100% of D1's costs after 30 January 2024
  2. 2 Whether D1's counter-offer amounted to a sanctioned offer capable of affecting costs under Order 62 r 5(1)(d)
  3. 3 Whether D1's Legal Aid status alone justifies departure from ordinary costs discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the Order Nisi was dismissed because D1's counter-offer was not a sanctioned offer, was vague and did not address costs, Legal Aid status alone does not justify departing from Order 62 r 5(1)(d), and having dismissed D1's counterclaim the original apportionment (P to pay 80% of costs) was fair and appropriate; therefore no variation of the Order Nisi was warranted.

Court Disposition

D1's application to vary the Order Nisi dismissed; Order Nisi made absolute.

Orders

  • D1's application to vary the Order Nisi is dismissed.
  • The Order Nisi (that Plaintiff shall pay 80% of the costs of the entire action) shall become absolute.