CHENG SING KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA HAY AND OTHERS

CHENG SING KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA HAY AND OTHERS

The offers did not qualify as sanctioned offers because they contained terms on costs inconsistent with the mandatory costs consequences in Order 22; therefore they could not support an award of indemnity costs. The 1st defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs; however the costs reserved in respect of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2646
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Cheng sing keung; 2nd Plaintiff: chan wai fun; 1st Defendant: chan ka hay; 2nd Defendant: Ng Chi Chun; 3rd Defendant: Kong Fung Chun; 4th Defendant: Rich Billion Development International Limited; 5th Defendant: Wong Shu Fat; 6th Defendant: Wong Yin Lan Teresa; 7th Defendant: Li Yun Kwong; 8th Defendant: Tsui Yin Fong Molly; 9th Defendant: Lau Pak Hin Raymond; 10th Defendant: Or Yan Tat Kelvin; 11th Defendant: Lui Kwan Yan Fanny; 12th Defendant: Yick Tat Property Management Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2021
Case Number
HCA2164/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (right of Way / Property) / Post‑judgment Costs Variation (summonses Filed by 1st Defendant and Plaintiffs)
Outcome
Plaintiffs’ summons dismissed; 1st defendant’s summons denied to the extent of indemnity costs but granted to the extent of awarding the costs reserved in respect of the interlocutory injunction summons to the 1st defendant; varied costs order nisi to include reserved costs; no order as to costs of the two summonses.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Sanctioned Offer, Indemnity Costs, Reserved Costs, Interlocutory Injunction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Law Remedies Right of Way Sanctioned Offer Indemnity Costs Reserved Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheng sing keung

1st Plaintiff

chan wai fun

2nd Plaintiff

chan ka hay

1st Defendant

Ng Chi Chun

2nd Defendant

Kong Fung Chun

3rd Defendant

Rich Billion Development International Limited

4th Defendant

Wong Shu Fat

5th Defendant

Wong Yin Lan Teresa

6th Defendant

Li Yun Kwong

7th Defendant

Tsui Yin Fong Molly

8th Defendant

Lau Pak Hin Raymond

9th Defendant

Or Yan Tat Kelvin

10th Defendant

Lui Kwan Yan Fanny

11th Defendant

Yick Tat Property Management Company Limited

12th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (right of Way / Property) / Post‑judgment Costs Variation (summonses Filed by 1st Defendant and Plaintiffs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letters from the 1st defendant constituted sanctioned offers under Order 22
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded to the 1st defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be awarded costs for the interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The offers did not qualify as sanctioned offers because they contained terms on costs inconsistent with the mandatory costs consequences in Order 22; therefore they could not support an award of indemnity costs. The 1st defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs; however the costs reserved in respect of the interlocutory injunction summons are awarded to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs’ summons is dismissed and there is no order as to costs of the two summonses.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs’ summons dismissed; 1st defendant’s summons denied to the extent of indemnity costs but granted to the extent of awarding the costs reserved in respect of the interlocutory injunction summons to the 1st defendant; varied costs order nisi to include reserved costs; no order as to costs of the two summonses.

Orders

  • Dismiss plaintiffs\' summons filed 11 June 2021
  • Decline to award indemnity costs to the 1st defendant