ADDCHANCE LTD v. HEROJOY TRADING LTD

HCMP 2/2018

[2018] HKCFI 1988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2 OF 2018

____________

____________

____________

__________________________

D E C I S I O N  ON  C O S T S

__________________________

1.  The grounds for indemnity taxation as put forward by the plaintiff are essentially that the defendant has adopted the wrong interpretation of the Rules of the High Court, Order 28 rule 1 and the defendant was late in sending the skeleton by a day contrary to the practice direction.

2.  The fact that the defendant has a wrong understanding of the rules is clearly shown in their supporting affidavit. They should, therefore pay costs.  This error, however, cannot justify indemnity taxation.  The further fact of delay in furnishing the skeleton is also wrong on the defendant's part, but that wrong is not enough to elevate the scale of taxation from party and party to indemnity.

3.  The matter should have settled yesterday without the need for the hearing today.  To argue for indemnity costs on such flimsy ground which necessitated the holding of a hearing is contrary to the spirit of the CJR.

4.  In the premises, I grant leave to the defendant to withdraw the summons issued on 4 July 2018 with costs of the summons be to the plaintiff, save and except that the costs for this hearing be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

(Submissions re costs)

5.  Costs for the plaintiff, I assess summarily at $27,850.

6.  Costs of the defendant assessed at 15,000.