URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM

The court held the taxed costs awarded by Judge Wong were not covered by the MOC because liability for those costs arose only upon the court order; therefore a fresh charging order in respect of those costs was lawful. The taxing Master was entitled to continue and conclude taxation in the Defendant's partial absence, the Defendant's review application under O.62 r.33 was out of time and procedurally deficient, and the HK$3,000 letter did not settle the court‑awarded costs; accordingly the appeals against the Masters' decisions were dismissed and the charging order and allocatur were maintained.

Citation
URBAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSANG WING LAM
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Urban Property Management Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: The Incorporated Owners of King Tin Court; Defendant: Tsang Wing Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2010
Case Number
DCMP2185/2004
Procedural Posture
District Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (building Management/enforcement) / Appeal to District Judge Against Masters' Decisions
Outcome
Appeals/applications refused; allocatur and charging order upheld
Legal Topics
Memorandum of Charge (moc), Deed of Mutual Covenant (dmc), Charging Order, Taxation of Costs, Set Aside Allocatur, Continuation of Taxation in Absence, Time Limits for Review of Taxation
Source Language
EN
Building Management Property Law Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Enforcement and Charging Orders Memorandum of Charge (moc) Deed of Mutual Covenant (dmc) Charging Order +4 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Urban Property Management Limited

1st Plaintiff

The Incorporated Owners of King Tin Court

2nd Plaintiff

Tsang Wing Lam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

District Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (building Management/enforcement) / Appeal to District Judge Against Masters' Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether taxed costs awarded by earlier order were extinguished or covered by the MOC
  2. 2 Whether a fresh charging order could be imposed in respect of costs awarded by court
  3. 3 Whether the taxing Master was wrong to continue taxation in the Defendant's absence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the taxed costs awarded by Judge Wong were not covered by the MOC because liability for those costs arose only upon the court order; therefore a fresh charging order in respect of those costs was lawful. The taxing Master was entitled to continue and conclude taxation in the Defendant's partial absence, the Defendant's review application under O.62 r.33 was out of time and procedurally deficient, and the HK$3,000 letter did not settle the court‑awarded costs; accordingly the appeals against the Masters' decisions were dismissed and the charging order and allocatur were maintained.

Court Disposition

Appeals/applications refused; allocatur and charging order upheld

Orders

  • Applications to set aside the allocatur and charging order are dismissed
  • Charging order and allocatur in respect of the taxed costs are maintained