SUPERDRIVE INVESTMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG TSAN PONG DAVIE AND ANOTHER

SUPERDRIVE INVESTMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG TSAN PONG DAVIE AND ANOTHER

Payment into court of $210,000 settled only the Plaintiff's claim for damages and did not dispose of the outstanding injunctive claim; therefore the Plaintiff was not entitled to an automatic order for taxation under O.62 r.10(2). The court would exercise its discretion on costs and, having regard to the Calderbank...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SUPERDRIVE INVESTMENT LTD v. AU-YEUNG TSAN PONG DAVIE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendants
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Case Number
DCCJ3173/2004
Procedural Posture
District Court Civil Action for Negligence/nuisance and Breach of Deed of Mutual Covenant Seeking Injunction and Damages / Pre Trial/interlocutory Hearing on Costs and Approval of Consent Summons (trial Fixed for 21 May 2007)
Outcome
Application for automatic order for taxation refused; court granted consent injunction order and exercised discretion on costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Calderbank Offer, Payment Into Court, Injunction, Order for Taxation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Property Law Costs Law Costs Calderbank Offer Payment Into Court Injunction +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

District Court Civil Action for Negligence/nuisance and Breach of Deed of Mutual Covenant Seeking Injunction and Damages / Pre Trial/interlocutory Hearing on Costs and Approval of Consent Summons (trial Fixed for 21 May 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acceptance of payment into court entitles the Plaintiff to an automatic order for taxation under O.62 r.10(2) of the Rules of the District Court Cap.336
  2. 2 Whether payment into court in respect of damages settles all claims where injunctive relief remains outstanding
  3. 3 Whether the court should assess costs having regard to a Calderbank offer dated 27 April 2007 and the Plaintiff's rejection on 2 May 2007

Ratio Decidendi

Payment into court of $210,000 settled only the Plaintiff's claim for damages and did not dispose of the outstanding injunctive claim; therefore the Plaintiff was not entitled to an automatic order for taxation under O.62 r.10(2). The court would exercise its discretion on costs and, having regard to the Calderbank letter of 27 April 2007 and the Plaintiff's rejection on 2 May 2007, awarded costs to the Plaintiff only up to the date of the Calderbank letter and required the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs incurred after 2 May 2007, subject to agreed exceptions regarding specific applications and hearings.

Court Disposition

Application for automatic order for taxation refused; court granted consent injunction order and exercised discretion on costs.

Orders

  • No automatic order for taxation under O.62 r.10(2) as not all claims were settled
  • Consent order granting the injunction