CY v. WTW

CY v. WTW

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable ground to disturb the judge's discretionary costs decision: the costs order nisi had not been perfected, the judge correctly found the prohibition application unmeritorious on the evidence, the respondent's failure to issue a summons was excusable and relief under Order 2 Rule 5 was properly granted, and consequently the costs order was not wrong in principle; petitioner ordered to pay indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 and further oral reconsideration prohibited under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).

Citation
CY v. WTW
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 2016
Case Number
HCMP2775/2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From FCMC No 15393 of 2014) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Summons of 14 October 2016 dismissed; leave to appeal refused; petitioner ordered to pay respondent indemnity costs fixed at $35,000; no party may request oral reconsideration under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).
Legal Topics
Prohibition Order, Costs Order Nisi Vs Absolute, Leave to Appeal, Functus Rule, Procedural Discipline, Relief From Sanctions (order 2 Rule 5), Restriction on Reconsideration (order 59 Rule 2 A(8))
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Injunctive Relief Prohibition Order Costs Order Nisi Vs Absolute Leave to Appeal Functus Rule +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From FCMC No 15393 of 2014) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was functus and lacked jurisdiction to reopen the costs order
  2. 2 Whether the costs order nisi had been perfected into an absolute order
  3. 3 Whether the original prohibition application was meritorious

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable ground to disturb the judge's discretionary costs decision: the costs order nisi had not been perfected, the judge correctly found the prohibition application unmeritorious on the evidence, the respondent's failure to issue a summons was excusable and relief under Order 2 Rule 5 was properly granted, and consequently the costs order was not wrong in principle; petitioner ordered to pay indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 and further oral reconsideration prohibited under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).

Court Disposition

Summons of 14 October 2016 dismissed; leave to appeal refused; petitioner ordered to pay respondent indemnity costs fixed at $35,000; no party may request oral reconsideration under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).

Orders

  • Dismissed the summons of 14 October 2016 with costs
  • Ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis fixed at $35,000 HKD