WELSON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JEBSON INVESTMENTS LTD

WELSON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JEBSON INVESTMENTS LTD

The master erred in law by awarding all costs to the plaintiff; where a defendant discloses a meritorious defence after proceedings commence the correct approach is to apportion costs so that costs of the setting aside application before the date the defence was disclosed remain plaintiff's, and costs on or after the date of disclosure (24 July 2009) are awarded to the defendant; accordingly the cross-appeal is allowed and the master's costs order is varied.

Citation
WELSON INTERNATIONAL LTD v. JEBSON INVESTMENTS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Unknown Plaintiff; Defendant: Unknown Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 2010
Case Number
HCA2620/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal (setting Aside Default Judgment) / Judge in Chambers Decision on Cross Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Cross-appeal allowed in part; master's costs order set aside and varied.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Costs Allocation, Service of Process, Replacement of Contract
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Costs Allocation Service of Process Replacement of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Unknown Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal (setting Aside Default Judgment) / Judge in Chambers Decision on Cross Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's cross-appeal amounted to an appeal against the master's costs order
  2. 2 What costs order is appropriate where a regular default judgment is set aside and the defence discloses merits after initial proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the master erred in law in ordering all costs to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The master erred in law by awarding all costs to the plaintiff; where a defendant discloses a meritorious defence after proceedings commence the correct approach is to apportion costs so that costs of the setting aside application before the date the defence was disclosed remain plaintiff's, and costs on or after the date of disclosure (24 July 2009) are awarded to the defendant; accordingly the cross-appeal is allowed and the master's costs order is varied.

Court Disposition

Cross-appeal allowed in part; master's costs order set aside and varied.

Orders

  • Costs of the setting aside application before 24 July 2009 to be paid by the plaintiff
  • Costs of the setting aside application on and after 24 July 2009 to be paid by the defendant