TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm) AND ANOTHER

TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm) AND ANOTHER

The Nisi Order was not varied because considering the results before the Master and on appeal neither party was wholly successful; the Nisi Order appropriately reflected the overall distribution of success and should therefore remain absolute; P1 must bear the costs of the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed, with summary on-paper taxation and directed timelines.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 555
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TAM YUK CHING (譚玉貞); 2nd Plaintiff: take point investment holdings limited (得邦投資控股有限公司); 3rd Plaintiff: blIssful voice limited; 1st Defendant: HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm); 2nd Defendant: WONG & POON SOLICITORS (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Case Number
HCA1511/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (strike Out Appeal) / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order
Outcome
Application to vary dismissed; Nisi Order made absolute; costs of the application to vary to be borne by P1 and taxed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Costs Order, Variation of Order, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Striking Out Strike Out Application Costs Order Variation of Order 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAM YUK CHING (譚玉貞)

1st Plaintiff

take point investment holdings limited (得邦投資控股有限公司)

2nd Plaintiff

blIssful voice limited

3rd Plaintiff

HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm)

1st Defendant

WONG & POON SOLICITORS (a firm)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (strike Out Appeal) / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Nisi Order should be varied
  2. 2 Whether P1 is entitled to half the costs of the appeal given partial success
  3. 3 How to allocate costs having regard to results before the Master and this Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Nisi Order was not varied because considering the results before the Master and on appeal neither party was wholly successful; the Nisi Order appropriately reflected the overall distribution of success and should therefore remain absolute; P1 must bear the costs of the variation application, to be taxed if not agreed, with summary on-paper taxation and directed timelines.

Court Disposition

Application to vary dismissed; Nisi Order made absolute; costs of the application to vary to be borne by P1 and taxed if not agreed.

Orders

  • Nisi Order made absolute
  • D1's costs of and occasioned by the application to vary are to be borne by P1, to be taxed if not agreed