Y, S v. GI, GG

Y, S v. GI, GG

The court held that paragraph 2 of the Security Order did not preclude the court from exercising jurisdiction to order summary assessment of the costs of the Originating Summons; the costs provision could be regarded as an order nisi and, in any event, because the costs order had not been drawn up the court was not functus and could order summary assessment; the Plaintiffs were given 14 days to file objections to the 1st Defendant's Statement of Costs; no further costs order was made on the Costs Summons.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3633
Parties
1st Plaintiff (2nd Respondent in the Arbitration): Y; 2nd Plaintiff (3rd Respondent in the Arbitration): S; 1st Defendant (claimant in the Arbitration): GI; 2nd Defendant (1st Respondent in Arbitration): GG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 August 2025
Case Number
HCCT117/2024
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Decision on Security Summons and Costs Summons (summary Assessment)
Outcome
Costs of the Originating Summons to be paid by the Plaintiffs on an indemnity basis and to be summarily assessed; Plaintiffs given leave to file objections within 14 days; no further order for costs on the Costs Summons.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Order Nisi, Summary Assessment of Costs, Functus Officio
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Civil Procedure Costs Court Inherent Jurisdiction Security for Costs Setting Aside Arbitral Award Order Nisi Summary Assessment of Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y

1st Plaintiff (2nd Respondent in the Arbitration)

S

2nd Plaintiff (3rd Respondent in the Arbitration)

GI

1st Defendant (claimant in the Arbitration)

GG

2nd Defendant (1st Respondent in Arbitration)

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Decision on Security Summons and Costs Summons (summary Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 2 of the Security Order operated as a final costs order rendering the court functus
  2. 2 Whether the court could order summary assessment of the costs of the Originating Summons after the Security Order
  3. 3 Whether the costs provision in the Security Order should be treated as an order nisi subject to variation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that paragraph 2 of the Security Order did not preclude the court from exercising jurisdiction to order summary assessment of the costs of the Originating Summons; the costs provision could be regarded as an order nisi and, in any event, because the costs order had not been drawn up the court was not functus and could order summary assessment; the Plaintiffs were given 14 days to file objections to the 1st Defendant's Statement of Costs; no further costs order was made on the Costs Summons.

Court Disposition

Costs of the Originating Summons to be paid by the Plaintiffs on an indemnity basis and to be summarily assessed; Plaintiffs given leave to file objections within 14 days; no further order for costs on the Costs Summons.

Orders

  • Costs of the Originating Summons to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the 1st Defendant on an indemnity basis and to be summarily assessed
  • Plaintiffs to file their Statement of Objections to the 1st Defendant's statement of costs within 14 days