2 Sept 2020
方木溪 對 吳金妹及曾漢生經營的曾潮記及另二人
- Citation
- [2020] HKDC 714
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCEC2088/2014
The court held that the third respondent has locus standi to apply to vary the interim costs order because it has statutory duties and potential exposure under the Fund; the first respondent's absence since 2017 did not materially increase costs nor justify treating it differently, so the interim costs order was varied to require the first respondent to pay 60% of the costs of the compensation assessment (matching the second respondent). However, for the present summons seeking variation the fair order was that no costs be awarded between the parties and the applicant's own costs to be assess…