LIAOYANG SHUNFENG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG TSZ WANG AND ANOTHER

CACV 234/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 234 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1415 OF 2010)

------------------------

----------------------

DETERMINATION

----------------------

Hon Bharwaney J:

1. The Court of Appeal granted an anti-suit injunction to the plaintiffs on 14 June 2012 and made an order of costs in their favour, with certificate for two counsel. On 12 July 2012, the defendants filed an application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. The hearing of the application for leave was fixed to be heard on 28 November 2012. On 26 October 2012, the defendants abandoned their application and, subsequently, by a consent summons dated 21 November 2012, which was made an order in terms, the defendants were granted leave to withdraw their application with costs to the plaintiffs, but with the issue of certificate of counsel to be determined by this Court upon considering written submissions.

2. We have considered the written submissions of the parties and are satisfied that the costs of the application should be awarded to the plaintiffs with certificate for two counsel.  The Court of Appeal granted certificate for the two counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs at the appeal.  It was reasonable for the plaintiffs to instruct two counsel to advise on and prepare for the application for leave to appeal.  On 17 July 2013, the application for leave was fixed to be heard on 28 November 2012.  It would have been reasonable for the plaintiffs on 17 July 2013 to mark the diaries of the two counsel and to instruct them to advise on and prepare for the application for leave to appeal.  The fact that the leave application was abandoned on 26 October 2012 did not did make the plaintiffs’ decision to instruct two counsel unreasonable.  However, the early abandonment would have helped to reduce costs substantially.  It remains to be seen what work, if any, was done by plaintiffs’ counsel on the case between 17 July 2013 and 26 October 2012, and whether briefs were delivered before 26 October 2012, but that is a matter for the taxing master.