WML v. LCK
- Citation
- WML v. LCK
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 28 April 2015
- Posture
- Civil Appeal and Miscellaneous Proceedings (costs/leave Applications) / Court of Appeal Decision on Variation of Costs Nisi and Related Applications After Appeal Allowed and Retrial Ordered
- Case number
- HCMP3011/2014
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 28 April 2015
- Posture
- Civil Appeal and Miscellaneous Proceedings (costs/leave Applications) / Court of Appeal Decision on Variation of Costs Nisi and Related Applications After Appeal Allowed and Retrial Ordered
- Case number
- HCMP3011/2014
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The costs nisi order was not varied because the appeal was allowed primarily due to the husband not receiving a fair trial, which was not the wife's fault, and because the wife's leave application was brief and did not materially increase the costs of the appeal; therefore no order as to costs was appropriate.
Court disposition
Court refused to vary the costs nisi order; wife's application for costs refused; no order as to costs of this application; wife's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations; appeal allowed, judgment below set aside and retrial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; retrial ordered.
- Costs nisi order not varied; no order as to costs of the appeal and below and of the wife's leave application.
- Wife's application for costs refused.
- No order as to costs of this application.
- Wife's own costs to be taxed according to the Legal Aid Regulations.
02
Material facts
Parties
WML
Petitioner Counsel: Mr Andy Hung (instructed by Stephen Lo & P. Y. Tse; assigned by Director of Legal Aid)LCK
Respondent Counsel: Mr Patrick Chong (instructed by Au & Vrijmoed)03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal and Miscellaneous Proceedings (costs/leave Applications) / Court of Appeal Decision on Variation of Costs Nisi and Related Applications After Appeal Allowed and Retrial Ordered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court should vary the existing costs nisi order
- 02
Whether the husband is entitled to costs of the appeal and of the wife's leave application
- 03
Whether the wife is entitled to costs of the appeal, costs below and costs of her leave application
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Husband accepted no order as to costs below but sought costs of the appeal and costs of the wife's leave to appeal out of time.
- Respondent
- Wife contended she was entitled to costs of the appeal and below and of her leave application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law; Court of Appeal reasoning
Court has a discretion to order costs and may depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event when fairness requires it.
- 02
Court of Appeal reasoning
A party will not be deprived of costs relief where the successful relief is obtained due to the other party's fault; conversely, where appeal succeeds because of procedural unfairness not attributable to the other party, costs may be denied.
- 03
Legal Aid Regulations (Hong Kong)
Costs connected to legal aid matters are taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The costs nisi order was not varied because the appeal was allowed primarily due to the husband not receiving a fair trial, which was not the wife's fault, and because the wife's leave application was brief and did not materially increase the costs of the appeal; therefore no order as to costs was appropriate.
Obiter and limits
- The constructive trust issue was considered but was not the main reason for allowing the appeal.
- The wife, having not applied by separate summons to vary the costs order, gave no basis upon which she could be awarded costs.
- There will be no order as to costs of the present application and the wife's own costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
Court disposition
Court refused to vary the costs nisi order; wife's application for costs refused; no order as to costs of this application; wife's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations; appeal allowed, judgment below set aside and retrial ordered.
- Appeal allowed; judgment below set aside; retrial ordered.
- Costs nisi order not varied; no order as to costs of the appeal and below and of the wife's leave application.
- Wife's application for costs refused.
- No order as to costs of this application.
- Wife's own costs to be taxed according to the Legal Aid Regulations.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 28 April 2015
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 28 April 2015
CACV 82/2014 and HCMP 3011/2014 CACV 82/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2014 (ON APPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 5663 OF 2011)
BETWEEN WML Petitioner and LCK Respondent AND HCMP 3011/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3011 of 2014 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 5663 OF 2011)
BETWEEN WML Petitioner and LCK Respondent Before : Hon Cheung, Chu JJA and Poon J in Court Date of Petitioner’s Written Submissions : 25 March 2015 Dates of Respondent’s Written Submissions : 2 March and 1 April 2015 Date of Decision : 28 April 2015
D E C I S I O N Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) : On 27 February 2015, the Court allowed the husband’s appeal, set aside the judgment below and ordered a retrial. We further ordered on a nisi basis that there will be no order as to costs of the appeal and below and also of the wife’s application for leave to appeal out of time (‘the wife’s leave application’). The husband now seeks to vary the costs nisi order. We now deal with the matter on paper having received the written submissions of the parties. The husband accepts that there should be no order as to costs below but contends that he is entitled to the costs of the appeal and the costs of the wife’s leave application. We will not vary the costs nisi order. Although we had also addressed the issue of constructive trust, the main reason for allowing the husband’s appeal is due to the fact that he did not receive a fair trial below. This was not due to the wife’s fault. Further, the wife’s leave application was only briefly addressed at the hearing and did not add much to the costs of the appeal. Overall the order that there should be no order as to costs is appropriate. Although the wife herself did not apply by a separate summons to vary the costs order, she argued that she is entitled to the costs of the appeal and below and also of her leave application. We fail to see on what basis she is entitled to such
costs. Accordingly her application is refused. There will be no order as to costs of this application. The wife’s own costs to be taxed according to Legal Aid Regulations. (Peter Cheung) (Carlye Chu) (Jeremy Poon) Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance Written Submissions by Mr Andy Hung, instructed by Stephen Lo & P. Y. Tse, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the petitioner Written Submissions by Mr Patrick Chong, instructed by Au & Vrijmoed, for the respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.