6 Apr 2020
東盈投資有限公司 對 陳寶榮
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 454
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA2211/2015
The defendant's application was dismissed because it was vague, unsupported and the defendant failed to show an arguable appeal or exceptional circumstances to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the plaintiff's application was allowed because clause 22(iii) of the second mortgage expressly entitled recovery of reasonable costs including legal expenses on a solicitor-and-own-client basis and the plaintiff proved service of its summons; accordingly costs for the two summonses were ordered against the defendant and assessed on a solicitor-and-own-client basis at HK$80,000.