TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD

Because the 7th defendant effectively won the strike-out application but the plaintiffs succeeded in their amendment (even if only as to one cause of action) the plaintiffs must pay the 7th defendant's costs of the strike-out application and the costs of and occasioned by the amendment; costs of the hearings of the amendment are to the 7th defendant in the cause, taxed on a party and party basis, and the plaintiffs must pay the costs of the summons to vary the earlier costs order on a party and party basis.

Citation
TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN; 2nd Plaintiff: JORGEN GUDIK MORTENSEN; 1st Defendant: BARBER ASIA LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES GROUP LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: CHRISTOPHER MARK BARBER; 4th Defendant: ANDREW NICHOLAS BARBER; 5th Defendant: PHILIP CLARK; 6th Defendant: JAYNIE BARBER; 7th Defendant: CHARLES FREDERICK DUNFORD; 8th Defendant: COLIN SCOTT-LAWS; 9th Defendant: PETER ELLIOT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 March 2007
Case Number
HCA1963/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Costs Following Strike Out and Amendment Applications
Outcome
Application to vary costs granted in part in favour of the 7th defendant; plaintiffs ordered to pay specified costs to the 7th defendant.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Amendment of Statement of Claim, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Strike Out Amendment of Statement of Claim Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN

1st Plaintiff

JORGEN GUDIK MORTENSEN

2nd Plaintiff

BARBER ASIA LIMITED

1st Defendant

INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES GROUP LIMITED

2nd Defendant

CHRISTOPHER MARK BARBER

3rd Defendant

ANDREW NICHOLAS BARBER

4th Defendant

PHILIP CLARK

5th Defendant

JAYNIE BARBER

6th Defendant

CHARLES FREDERICK DUNFORD

7th Defendant

COLIN SCOTT-LAWS

8th Defendant

PETER ELLIOT

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Costs Following Strike Out and Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original costs nisi order should be varied
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs should pay the 7th defendant's costs of the strike-out application and the application to amend
  3. 3 Allocation of costs where a defendant's strike-out succeeds but the plaintiff's amendment succeeds in part

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 7th defendant effectively won the strike-out application but the plaintiffs succeeded in their amendment (even if only as to one cause of action) the plaintiffs must pay the 7th defendant's costs of the strike-out application and the costs of and occasioned by the amendment; costs of the hearings of the amendment are to the 7th defendant in the cause, taxed on a party and party basis, and the plaintiffs must pay the costs of the summons to vary the earlier costs order on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs granted in part in favour of the 7th defendant; plaintiffs ordered to pay specified costs to the 7th defendant.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs must pay the 7th defendant's costs of the 7th defendant's application to strike out by summons dated 23 October 2006.
  • Plaintiffs must pay the 7th defendant's costs of and occasioned by the amendment arising from the plaintiffs' application to amend the statement of claim made by summons dated 19 July 2006.