KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER v. KAN HEUNG WING AND ANOTHER

KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER v. KAN HEUNG WING AND ANOTHER

The court varied the order nisi because the adjournment on 8 January 2013 was occasioned by the Purchaser's incorrect information and was avoidable, so costs of that hearing were ordered to the Vendors in any event; for the other pre-8 January hearings, the hearing before the judge on 28 March 2013 and the present application the general rule applies that costs be in the cause where unconditional leave to defend is granted, and the Vendors' own costs are to be taxed under legal aid regulations.

Citation
KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER v. KAN HEUNG WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action) / 1st Defendant (counterclaim): KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER; 1st Defendant (original Action) / 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): KAN HEUNG WING; 2nd Defendant (original Action) / 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): YANG YOU MEI; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): WONG & POON (a firm)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Case Number
DCCJ3724/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil: Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 and Costs Variation / Application to Vary Order Nisi on Costs After Unconditional Leave to Defend Granted
Outcome
Order nisi on costs varied
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Order 14, Costs in the Cause, Individual Voluntary Arrangement, Adjournment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Insolvency Summary Judgment Order 14 Costs in the Cause Individual Voluntary Arrangement Adjournment

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KONG KING ONG ALEXANDER

Plaintiff (original Action) / 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

KAN HEUNG WING

1st Defendant (original Action) / 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

YANG YOU MEI

2nd Defendant (original Action) / 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

WONG & POON (a firm)

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil: Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 and Costs Variation / Application to Vary Order Nisi on Costs After Unconditional Leave to Defend Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order nisi on costs should be varied
  2. 2 Whether costs of specified prior hearings should be in the cause or awarded to a party in any event
  3. 3 Effect of the Purchaser's bankruptcy and IVA (and his incorrect information) on adjournments and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court varied the order nisi because the adjournment on 8 January 2013 was occasioned by the Purchaser's incorrect information and was avoidable, so costs of that hearing were ordered to the Vendors in any event; for the other pre-8 January hearings, the hearing before the judge on 28 March 2013 and the present application the general rule applies that costs be in the cause where unconditional leave to defend is granted, and the Vendors' own costs are to be taxed under legal aid regulations.

Court Disposition

Order nisi on costs varied

Orders

  • Costs of the hearings dated 6 November 2009, 27 August 2010, 26 August 2011, 17 January 2012, 13 April 2012 and 26 June 2012 be in the cause
  • Costs of the hearing dated 8 January 2013 before Deputy District Judge S Lo be to the Vendors in any event