28 Apr 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 243
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCEC2088/2014
The court corrected the clerical error substituting the first respondent for the third, held the applicant had substantially exaggerated the claim thereby justifying departures from general costs practice against the applicant and second respondent, but recognised the Fund's statutory filtering role and therefore ordered no costs between applicant and the Fund; apportioned costs between parties (second respondent to pay 60% of applicant's costs re compensation assessment; first and second to pay the Fund's costs relating to assessment).