TAM BING CHOI AND OTHERS v. HUI SIM KIU AND ANOTHER

TAM BING CHOI AND OTHERS v. HUI SIM KIU AND ANOTHER

The court held that costs should follow the event: the Defendants succeeded in striking out the Plaintiffs' claim, and there was no basis to depart from the starting point of full indemnity of costs by the Plaintiffs; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to require the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 986
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tam Bing Choi; 2nd Plaintiff: Hui Lai Ching Janet; 3rd Plaintiff: Wong Pui Kwan; 4th Plaintiff: Yiu Mi Kuen; 5th Plaintiff: Yiu Mei Ching; 1st Defendant: Hui Sim Kiu; 2nd Defendant: Kowloon Tong Baptist Church
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2022
Case Number
HCA1091/2018
Procedural Posture
Action No 1091 of 2018 (high Court of the Hong Kong Sar, Court of First Instance) / Post Decision Variation of Costs Order Application (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Variation Summons allowed in part: costs of the Action ordered to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants; no certificate for counsel for the costs of the Action; certificate for one counsel granted only in respect of the Variation Summons.
Legal Topics
Variation of Costs Order, Striking Out Application, Locus Standi, Certificate for Counsel, Settlement Offers
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Declaratory Relief Striking Out Variation of Costs Order Striking Out Application Locus Standi Certificate for Counsel +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tam Bing Choi

1st Plaintiff

Hui Lai Ching Janet

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Pui Kwan

3rd Plaintiff

Yiu Mi Kuen

4th Plaintiff

Yiu Mei Ching

5th Plaintiff

Hui Sim Kiu

1st Defendant

Kowloon Tong Baptist Church

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action No 1091 of 2018 (high Court of the Hong Kong Sar, Court of First Instance) / Post Decision Variation of Costs Order Application (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied to include costs of the Action payable by the Plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs should be ordered to pay only 50% of the costs of the Action
  3. 3 Whether a certificate for one counsel should be granted for the costs of the Action/variation summons

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that costs should follow the event: the Defendants succeeded in striking out the Plaintiffs' claim, and there was no basis to depart from the starting point of full indemnity of costs by the Plaintiffs; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to require the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the Action to the Defendants (to be taxed if not agreed). The court refused to reduce liability to 50% and refused a certificate for counsel in respect of the costs of the Action, although a certificate for one counsel was granted for the Variation Summons only.

Court Disposition

Variation Summons allowed in part: costs of the Action ordered to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants; no certificate for counsel for the costs of the Action; certificate for one counsel granted only in respect of the Variation Summons.

Orders

  • Costs of and occasioned by the Defendants' Summons to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Costs of the Action to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants, to be taxed if not agreed