Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Search powers

  • 9 Dec 2010

    HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL18/2007

    The court held that while 'costs follow the event' remains a starting point, the reformed rules and authorities permit detailed apportionment by issue and consideration of public interest; applying those principles the court allocated costs: respondents awarded costs of the leave appearance and resisting discovery, applicants awarded costs of the successful amendment application, overall justice required applicants to pay 60% of respondents' costs (taxed party and party) and respondents to pay 100% of applicants' costs reserved on 30 August 2007; HCMP costs ordered 'in the cause' cannot now b…

  • 9 Dec 2010

    WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL17/2007

    The court exercised its discretion under the post‑reform rules and ordered that, balancing public interest considerations, partial successes of the Applicants and misconduct by respondents on some facts, overall justice requires that the Applicants pay 60% of the Respondents' costs (to be taxed on a party and party basis), the Respondents pay 100% of the Applicants' costs for the 30 August 2007 reserved item, the Applicants recover costs for the successful amendment application and the leave hearing, and no separate order can now be made in respect of HCMP 1157/2007 because its costs were ord…

  • 9 Dec 2010

    HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL19/2007

    Applying the reformed discretionary approach to costs, the court exercised its discretion to allocate costs by issue: Respondents entitled to costs of leave appearance, resisting discovery and other interlocutory matters; Applicants entitled to costs of the successful amendment application; costs in HCMP 1157/2007 are governed by the earlier order that they be 'in the cause' and are not now revisable; overall justice requires Applicants pay 60% of Respondents' costs (taxed on party and party basis) while Respondents must pay 100% of Applicants' costs in respect of the 30 August 2007 award.

  • 9 Dec 2010

    CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL16/2007

    The court exercised its broad discretion under the revised costs regime, having regard to the nature of the claims, conduct of the parties, partial successes and failures, and public interest considerations, and ordered that overall the Applicants must pay 60% of the Respondents' costs to be taxed on a party-and-party basis while awarding the Applicants specific interlocutory costs (including 100% of Applicants' costs for the 30 August 2007 reserve) and costs of the successful amendment and leave appearances; satellite proceedings (HCMP 1157/2007) were dealt with by the order that costs be "i…

  • 9 Dec 2010

    CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1175/2007

    The court held that costs discretion post-reform is flexible: follow-the-event is a starting point not a rule; the court must allocate costs to achieve overall justice by considering public interest, conduct, partial successes and specific interlocutory outcomes. Applying those principles the court awarded respondents costs for specified interlocutory appearances and ordered the applicants to pay 60% of respondents' costs (party and party) generally, awarded applicants costs for the successful amendment application, and required respondents to pay 100% of applicants' costs in respect of costs…