Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Partial success

  • 26 Mar 2010

    CHIU KWOK HUNG BAN v. NG FU WING t/a WING KEE AQUARIUM ENG CO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHIU KWOK HUNG BAN v. NG FU WING t/a WING KEE AQUARIUM ENG CO AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC887/2002

    Application for Sanderson or Bullock order refused because plaintiff's cause of action against the 1st Respondent was inconsistent with that against other respondents and there was no genuine difficulty in ascertaining whom to sue after pleadings closed; given Applicant's limited success on principal issues (notably working days and wages), the court awarded only 25% of costs (with counsel's certificate) to be paid by the 3rd and 4th Respondents and ordered Applicant to pay costs of the 1st and 4th Respondents' submissions with a counsel certificate.

  • 8 Jan 2009

    LAM YIU CHO AND ANOTHER v. ASIALAND LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LAM YIU CHO AND ANOTHER v. ASIALAND LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA463/2006

    The court exercised its discretion: each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing on 20 November 2008 (including written submissions), and, on the balance, two-thirds of the costs of the Ord.14 summons are attributable to the unsuccessful heads and are to be paid by the plaintiffs; no order is made on the Ord.14 summons in HCA 2339/2007 as it was disposed of by consent.

  • 4 Aug 2004

    CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. PROFIT NATION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD v. PROFIT NATION DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2011/2003

    The court exercised its discretion to grant a certificate for two counsel for the hearing; despite the 1st defendant's partial success on the stay application in respect of $30,417,991 of the plaintiff's $50,644,791 claim, the court ordered no costs relating to the 1st defendant's stay application, finding that fairness required no order on those costs; the plaintiff was awarded costs of the action (including the Order 14 summons) and was awarded costs of the stay application against the 2nd and 3rd defendants.