Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim certificates

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2009

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW50/2006

A taxing master has the discretionary power under Order 62, rule 17 to grant interim certificates for unopposed items in a bill of costs even at the call-over hearing; the Paying Parties failed to establish reasons to refuse the exercise of that discretion, and there was no basis for a discount or instalment payments, accordingly interim certificates for specified sums were ordered payable forthwith.
31 Mar 2009

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW51/2006

The Registrar held that Order 62, r.17 empowers the taxing master to grant interim certificates for unopposed items in a bill of costs even at the call-over hearing; the application was part of the taxation process; the Paying Parties failed to demonstrate any legal basis to refuse certificates, to justify a discount or instalment payments; thus interim certificates were ordered payable forthwith and costs of the summonses were to be assessed on a gross sum basis with specified timetable.
31 Mar 2009

YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW133/2007

A taxing master has the discretion under Order 62 r.17 to issue interim certificates for unopposed items in a bill of costs even at the call-over stage; where paying parties have not properly raised or supported objections the discretion should be exercised to grant interim certificates payable forthwith, and absent evidence there is no basis for discounting or ordering instalment payments.
31 Mar 2009

YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW132/2007

The taxing master has a discretion under Order 62, rule 17 to grant interim certificates for unopposed items in a bill of costs even at the call‑over hearing; where the paying parties fail to show a proper basis to refuse, interim certificates should be issued for the unopposed sums and payment be made forthwith; allegations about shareholder injections are factual matters irrelevant to the taxation without evidence and do not justify discounts or instalment payments.
31 Mar 2009

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW52/2006

The taxing master has a discretionary power under Order 62, rule 17 to grant interim certificates in the course of taxation, including at the call‑over hearing, for unopposed items; the Paying Parties failed to provide evidence or legal basis to displace that discretion, so interim certificates were ordered and requests for discount or instalments were refused.
31 Mar 2009

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS

Citation

BEATRICE TSANG SAU HING AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW49/2006

Order 62 rule 17 empowers the taxing master to grant interim certificates for unopposed items even at the call-over hearing; the Registrar exercised that discretion in favour of the Receiving Parties, finding no basis to refuse interim certificates or to order discounts or instalment payments.
31 Mar 2009

YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG MAN LOONG MAXLY AND OTHERS v. TSANG SAU HING BEATRICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW130/2007

Order 62 r.17 authorises the taxing master to issue interim certificates for unopposed items in a bill of costs even at the call‑over hearing; the court will exercise that discretion where paying parties fail to show why it should not be exercised, and allegations of shareholder funding do not justify a discount or instalment payments on interim certificates.
5 Dec 2005

WIDE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. THE NCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEN DACK BUILDING

Citation

WIDE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. THE NCORPORATED OWNERS OF YEN DACK BUILDING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3759/2002

The court has jurisdiction to open and review interim certificates; on the evidence (including contemporaneous documentation and expert assessments) the defendant failed to prove widespread non-completion or defect except in limited respects (defective work at 4 opened-up locations, failure to remove screws/nails externally, and failure to procure the surety bond). Accordingly the 5th and 6th certificates are to be adjusted (Concrete Repair Works 95% complete with 5% outstanding; roof plant room waterproofing 100%; roof waterproofing assessed at 80%), the defendant's purported termination of…
25 Apr 2003

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16179/2001

Although the plaintiff had not complied with the contract requirement to complete rectification works to the Architect's satisfaction making the action premature on the basis pleaded, the interim certificate dated 20 December 2000 nevertheless created a debt for the certified sum; the court accepted the QS final account of 19 March 2003 as reflecting the parties' accounts and, applying Order 15 Rule 2(4), gave judgment for the balance of HK$186,367.49 in favour of the plaintiff while reserving costs and interest for further hearing.
1 Dec 1999

RE PO SUN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

RE PO SUN CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW246/1999

The petition was dismissed because the Company raised bona fide disputed set-offs (including delay, occupation and indemnity issues) which meant the alleged debts were not established for winding-up purposes, and there were no opposing/supporting creditors or public interest to justify continuation of the petition.