WISE POWER FAR EAST LTD AND ANOTHER v. R.A. STEGEMANN

WISE POWER FAR EAST LTD AND ANOTHER v. R.A. STEGEMANN

The Registrar was correct to classify and strike out Claims D and E as claims for costs rather than damages; there was insufficient evidence of any contractual relationship to keep the 3rd defendant in the action, so those claims were properly struck out; costs follow the event and the Registrar's costs directions remain in force (including the nisi order), and the matter is to be transferred to the District Court under s.43 because the quantum falls within its scale.

Citation
WISE POWER FAR EAST LTD AND ANOTHER v. R.A. STEGEMANN
Parties
Plaintiff (hca282/2005); Defendant (hca283/2005): R.A. Stegemann; 1st Defendant (hca282/2005); 1st Plaintiff (hca283/2005): Wise Power Far East Ltd; 2nd Defendant (hca282/2005); 2nd Plaintiff (hca283/2005): Ho Chun Hung Lawrence trading as; 3rd Defendant (hca282/2005); Plaintiff (hca283/2005): Time Enterprise Company; 3rd Defendant (hca282/2005): Time Enterprises Publications Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 August 2006
Case Number
HCA283/2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Registrar's Decision in Related Actions Hca282/2005 and Hca283/2005 / Hearing in Chambers — Judgment on Appeal (disposal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in all respects; Registrar's decisions affirmed
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Costs Orders, Distinction Between Costs and Damages, Transfer Under District Court Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Jurisdiction and Court Transfer Strike Out Costs Orders Distinction Between Costs and Damages Transfer Under District Court Ordinance

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.A. Stegemann

Plaintiff (hca282/2005); Defendant (hca283/2005)

Wise Power Far East Ltd

1st Defendant (hca282/2005); 1st Plaintiff (hca283/2005)

Ho Chun Hung Lawrence trading as

2nd Defendant (hca282/2005); 2nd Plaintiff (hca283/2005)

Time Enterprise Company

3rd Defendant (hca282/2005); Plaintiff (hca283/2005)

Time Enterprises Publications Limited

3rd Defendant (hca282/2005)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Registrar's Decision in Related Actions Hca282/2005 and Hca283/2005 / Hearing in Chambers — Judgment on Appeal (disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Claims D and E in HCA282/2005 were claims for damages or merely claims for costs and therefore properly struck out
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claims against the 3rd defendant in HCA282/2005 should be struck out for lack of contractual basis
  3. 3 Appropriate costs orders including nisi order and fixed costs award

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar was correct to classify and strike out Claims D and E as claims for costs rather than damages; there was insufficient evidence of any contractual relationship to keep the 3rd defendant in the action, so those claims were properly struck out; costs follow the event and the Registrar's costs directions remain in force (including the nisi order), and the matter is to be transferred to the District Court under s.43 because the quantum falls within its scale.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in all respects; Registrar's decisions affirmed

Orders

  • Strike out of Claims D and E in HCA282/2005 upheld
  • Strike out of the plaintiff's claims against the 3rd defendant in HCA282/2005 upheld