DYNASTY LINE LTD v. SUKAMTO SIA AND ANOTHER

HCA2057/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2057 OF 2007

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

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

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

R U L I N G

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

Plaintiff’s Submission

1.  The approach taken by Mr Stock in support of orders for costs between the parties in respect of summonses taken out by the defendants, which in the event failed, is to say that I should reflect the plaintiffs’ successes in respect to those summonses by making orders between the parties and awarding the plaintiffs their costs in any event.  He accepts that in respect of the injunction, which is what the plaintiffs essentially had come to do, which was to preserve that injunction, he is content that I should maintain the order nisi, which is more or less I think the conventional order saying plaintiffs’ costs in the cause in respect of a situation where they were successful in having that injunction continued.

Defendant’s Submission

2.  The defendants submit that my original order, which was one of the plaintiffs’ costs in the cause overall in respect of all the summonses before me, is one that should remain in place and that I should not compartmentalise these summonses in the way that Mr Stock has suggested.

The Court

3.  I think the approach that I should take in respect of this matter is to ask myself the general question, what was this three day hearing all about, which, in fact, was all about the plaintiff seeking to have the injunction continued with the defendants, as they were perfectly entitled to, taking a number of points, as reflected in their summonses.

4.  At the end of the day, the summonses in which the defendants failed to succeed were by no means clear-cut, and the argument was by no means clear-cut. There was much to be said on their behalf, although ultimately they were unsuccessful.  I think that is something that perhaps I ought to bear in mind in my general assessment of this application today.  So this is not the sort of situation where the defendants had come forward with completely hopeless arguments which were effectively a waste of time and bound to fail. 

5.  So I have decided, notwithstanding the approach that has been urged upon me by Mr Stock, to retain the order that I made when I handed down the judgment and the order nisi, which seems to me is a broad reflection of what is the justice of the situation at this stage at all events and so, the application by Mr Stock today must be dismissed.

Costs of this hearing

6.  I think it is unfortunate, that although the system of handing down judgments and making orders nisi is obviously a very convenient one, it does on occasion leave over what can be quite an expensive and time-consuming hearing.  At least on this occasion it has not been time-consuming and we have had this argument.  It is all part and parcel of the interlocutory contest which relates back to my judgment last year.  I am going to say on this occasion that the appropriate order on this application should be the defendants’ costs in the cause.