Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 62 rule 10(2)

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2008

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. MANNITOP INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. MANNITOP INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1897/2007

Section 44A applies to transfers from the District Court to the High Court and confers a discretion on the transferee court to order costs and set scales for different parts of the proceedings; that discretion is not ousted by Order 62 rule 10(2) or by a payment‑in acceptance. Exercise of that discretion was warranted here: the bulk of work occurred in the District Court, the settlement quantum ($200,000) was within District Court jurisdiction, the injunctive relief that caused transfer was abandoned, and it would be unfair to saddle the defendant with High Court scale costs for work done in…
25 Jan 2008

HUNG YUET WAN v. LAU YAN SHING t/a SHING HING ENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUNG YUET WAN v. LAU YAN SHING t/a SHING HING ENG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1011/2005

The court held that Order 62 r10(2) only gives an automatic entitlement to have costs taxed without a prior order, not an absolute entitlement to taxation on the High Court scale; the court has unfettered discretion as to the appropriate scale and, applying the Lai Ki test to the evidence, the plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of recovering an amount exceeding the District Court limit, so costs should be taxed on District Court scale.
17 Feb 2006

KING ROYAL LTD v. LAM KWAN YUK

Citation

KING ROYAL LTD v. LAM KWAN YUK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV140/2005

The plaintiff was not entitled to recover its costs because its notice of acceptance did not abandon all other causes of action so Order 62 r10(2) was not engaged; payment into court did not amount to an admission; the court could not properly exercise inherent jurisdiction to award costs in absence of adjudication and with the defendant's counterclaim unresolved; consequently the District Court order awarding costs to the plaintiff was set aside.
27 Feb 2003

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS LTD. v. LO CHEE PUI

Citation

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS LTD. v. LO CHEE PUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV398/2002

Payment into court can only satisfy claims for debt or damages; because the plaintiff sought a declaration (non-monetary relief) which was not abandoned in accordance with the rules, the entire causes of action were not satisfied and the plaintiff was not entitled to tax its costs automatically under Order 62 Rule 10(2); a court order is required for taxation of costs in these circumstances.
9 Oct 2002

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, LTD. v. LO CHEE PUI

Citation

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, LTD. v. LO CHEE PUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA328/2000

The payment into court was not made in accordance with Order 22 r1(1) because the plaintiff relied on the same cause of action to support both declaratory relief and damages; accordingly the plaintiff's acceptance was not pursuant to Order 22 r3(1) and Order 62 r10(2) did not entitle the plaintiff to automatic costs or to proceed to taxation without a costs order.

Hong Kong Case Law

SUNBEAM INVESTMENTS LTD v. MANNITOP INVESTMENT CO LTD

HUNG YUET WAN v. LAU YAN SHING t/a SHING HING ENG AND ANOTHER

KING ROYAL LTD v. LAM KWAN YUK

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS LTD. v. LO CHEE PUI

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, LTD. v. LO CHEE PUI