SAM NICKOLAS DAVID HING CHEONG v. LOWE EDWIN RYAN

SAM NICKOLAS DAVID HING CHEONG v. LOWE EDWIN RYAN

The court revised the costs order to cover only the plaintiff’s costs up to the stage assessed by the Master, declined to disturb the Master’s summary assessment of $12,000 in the absence of material showing error, adjusted the plaintiff’s entitlement to appeal costs to 75% because the plaintiff succeeded on the main issues but not on all issues, and granted leave to appeal given the importance and lack of direct authority on the damages assessment issue.

Citation
SAM NICKOLAS DAVID HING CHEONG v. LOWE EDWIN RYAN
Parties
Plaintiff: Sam Nickolas David Hing Cheong; Defendant: Lowe Edwin Ryan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2010
Case Number
DCCJ4846/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (district Court) / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi and Application for Leave to Appeal (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs order nisi varied: plaintiff entitled to recover 75% of appeal costs; learned Master’s summary assessment of plaintiff’s costs up to that stage ($12,000) upheld; leave to appeal granted against the decision of 22 September 2010.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Summary Assessment by Master, Damages Assessment for Repudiation, Leave to Appeal, Without Prejudice Communications
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Property Law Costs Costs Assessment Summary Assessment by Master Damages Assessment for Repudiation Leave to Appeal +1 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Nickolas David Hing Cheong

Plaintiff

Lowe Edwin Ryan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (district Court) / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi and Application for Leave to Appeal (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi made 22 September 2010 should be varied and taxed
  2. 2 Whether the learned Master’s summary assessment of plaintiff’s costs should be disturbed
  3. 3 What share of the appeal costs the plaintiff is entitled to recover

Ratio Decidendi

The court revised the costs order to cover only the plaintiff’s costs up to the stage assessed by the Master, declined to disturb the Master’s summary assessment of $12,000 in the absence of material showing error, adjusted the plaintiff’s entitlement to appeal costs to 75% because the plaintiff succeeded on the main issues but not on all issues, and granted leave to appeal given the importance and lack of direct authority on the damages assessment issue.

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi varied: plaintiff entitled to recover 75% of appeal costs; learned Master’s summary assessment of plaintiff’s costs up to that stage ($12,000) upheld; leave to appeal granted against the decision of 22 September 2010.

Orders

  • Plaintiff entitled to recover 75% of the costs of the appeal.
  • The learned Master’s summary assessment of the Plaintiff’s costs up to that stage in the sum of $12,000 is not disturbed.