ST v. BETTY KWAN AND ANOTHER

ST v. BETTY KWAN AND ANOTHER

The court refused to make the proposed wasted costs order. Although the discovery application lacked merits, the court found no clear reprehensible dereliction of duty: the surprise/procedural impropriety factor was not established on corrected factual analysis and the lateness was excusable in the circumstances. Accordingly the applicant's own costs in the discovery application and the costs of the costs hearing are to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations rather than disallowed.

Citation
ST v. BETTY KWAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: ST; 1st Respondent: BETTY KWAN; 2nd Respondent: THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY; Interested Party: THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 January 2014
Case Number
HCAL60/2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Decision on Costs (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application for a wasted-costs order dismissed; applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Costs, Wasted Costs, Legal Aid Regulations, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legal Aid Discovery Costs Wasted Costs Legal Aid Regulations Taxation of Costs

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ST

Applicant

BETTY KWAN

1st Respondent

THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

2nd Respondent

THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Decision on Costs (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may order that an aided applicant's own costs be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations (effectively depriving the aided person of solicitor-client taxed costs)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's discovery application was procedurally improper, late or a surprise sufficient to justify a wasted costs order
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's solicitors should have obtained prior approval under Regulation 12(6) of the Legal Aid Regulations for the discovery application

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to make the proposed wasted costs order. Although the discovery application lacked merits, the court found no clear reprehensible dereliction of duty: the surprise/procedural impropriety factor was not established on corrected factual analysis and the lateness was excusable in the circumstances. Accordingly the applicant's own costs in the discovery application and the costs of the costs hearing are to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations rather than disallowed.

Court Disposition

Application for a wasted-costs order dismissed; applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.

Orders

  • The applicant's own costs in the subject discovery application to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.
  • The applicant's own costs for the present hearing to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.