31 Mar 2025
Although the merits showed no bona fide defence and the debtor's admissions rendered the debt due, the petition was dismissed because personal service in compliance with Rule 59 was not established; accordingly the court could not make a bankruptcy order despite substantive merit.
6 Sept 2022
The Letter of Intent expressly incorporated the Subcontract and its Terms and Conditions including the wide arbitration clause; the clause is capable of covering Additional Works (Sums 1 and 2) and therefore disputes concerning those sums fall within the arbitration agreement; the Defendant’s email did not constitute a clear and unequivocal admission of liability or quantum for Sum 1, so a real dispute remained; accordingly, under s20(1) Arbitration Ordinance the court must stay the action and refer the parties to arbitration.
30 Nov 2021
Leave to appeal was granted because the defendant raised arguable legal questions concerning the tribunal's reliance on an admission and the adjudicator's failure to conduct inquiries; under s.28(1) of the Ordinance it was appropriate to permit an appeal for those legal issues to be ventilated at a higher level.
17 Jul 2020
R1's objection lacked merit and, having withdrawn its submission, R1 must bear the costs occasioned by that objection; costs follow the event and the claimed quantum is reduced to amounts assessed by the Tribunal (HK$200,000 to the Applicant; HK$90,000 in aggregate allowed for R4, R6 and R7; HK$200 to each of R2, R3, R8 and R9).
8 May 2017
Because the respondent succeeded on the disputed issue of quantum and the court found the applicant exaggerated and was not honest about his condition (supported by surveillance and expert opinion), costs should follow the event as to quantum; accordingly respondent pays costs of liability and applicant pays respondent's costs of quantum with certificate for counsel on a party‑and‑party basis, taxed if not agreed.
11 Jan 2013
The applicant commenced proceedings unreasonably by issuing the action before expiry of her own Letter Before Action deadline and without adequate engagement in settlement negotiations, thereby justifying displacing the usual rule that costs follow the event; accordingly costs of the application and action were awarded to the respondent despite judgment for the applicant on liability and payment of the settlement sum.
25 Oct 2004
The e-mail of 29 April 2004, taken in context, constituted a clear admission by the defendant that the plaintiff was entitled to HK$3,059,342.43 under the three contracts; accordingly there was no genuine dispute to refer to arbitration under Cap.341 s.6, the defendant's stay was refused, and final judgment was entered for that sum with interest from the judgment date.
9 May 2003
The court exercised its discretion to award the applicant costs of the application up to and including the hearing and directed that costs be dealt with in the cause and taxed under Legal Aid Taxation, leaving the master to apportion costs between liability and quantum.
5 Nov 2002
Because the defendants had been informed of the new tenancy by 23 August and failed to adopt a position accepting liability, and because they failed in their argument that the writ was misconceived (leading to summary judgment), the court limited costs against the 1st defendant to 23 August and awarded costs against the 2nd defendant to the date of judgment, and made the orders absolute.
25 Oct 2002
Payment into court under Rule 20 does not constitute admission of liability; the court may grant leave for payment out on the parties' agreed terms without deciding liability, but payment out requires court determination or consent order and the court will supervise allocation of costs; accordingly leave was granted to accept payment out subject to wording silent on liability and costs were allocated with a cut‑off date.