CHINA GLOBAL (ASIA) LTD v. SLATE GLOBAL LTD

CHINA GLOBAL (ASIA) LTD v. SLATE GLOBAL LTD

The variation applications are refused because the respondent’s 24 June 2011 letter was unclear and ambiguous and did not constitute a sanctioned or effective settlement offer; therefore the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs to be summarily assessed; no costs order is made between respondent and third party...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHINA GLOBAL (ASIA) LTD v. SLATE GLOBAL LTD
Parties
Third Party: WANG KATRINA LEIGH
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Case Number
LDPD2890/2010
Procedural Posture
Lands Tribunal Tenancy Proceeding / Post Judgment Costs Applications (variation of Costs Order Nisi)
Outcome
Both applications for variation refused; respondent ordered to pay applicant’s costs; no order as to costs between respondent and third party; time for the costs order extended.
Legal Topics
Variation of Costs Order Nisi, Calderbank/settlement Offers, Summary Assessment of Costs, Apparent Authority, Transfer of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Tenancy Law Tribunal Jurisdiction Variation of Costs Order Nisi Calderbank/settlement Offers Summary Assessment of Costs Apparent Authority +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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WANG KATRINA LEIGH

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Lands Tribunal Tenancy Proceeding / Post Judgment Costs Applications (variation of Costs Order Nisi)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied to split costs by reference to an alleged offer dated 24 June 2011
  2. 2 Whether the respondent’s 24 June 2011 letter amounted to a clear settlement offer enforceable for costs purposes
  3. 3 Whether the third party should be awarded costs against the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The variation applications are refused because the respondent’s 24 June 2011 letter was unclear and ambiguous and did not constitute a sanctioned or effective settlement offer; therefore the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs to be summarily assessed; no costs order is made between respondent and third party and time for complying with the original costs order is extended by 14 days.

Court Disposition

Both applications for variation refused; respondent ordered to pay applicant’s costs; no order as to costs between respondent and third party; time for the costs order extended.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay costs of the Applicant, including the Certificate for Counsel for the hearing on 30 November 2011, to be summarily assessed by the Tribunal (0.5 hour reserved), failing agreement by the parties within 14 days from the date hereof.
  • No order as to costs as between the Third Party and the Respondent.