LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB

DCEO 11/2019

[2024] HKDC 1677

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACTION NO 11 OF 2019

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

BETWEEN

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

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

DECISION

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

1.  By a summons dated 13 May 2024 (“Summons”), the Claimant seeks to “vary the costs order nisi dated 30 April 2024”.

2.  By the decision handed down on 30 April 2024 (“April Decision”), I dismissed the Claimant’s application for leave to appeal made on 12 December 2023 (“December Application”) against my decision dated 28 November 2023, which was my summary assessment of the costs ordered to be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent carried out pursuant to §§5.5 and 5.6 of another decision dated 11 October 2023.

3.  In the April Decision, I stated as follows:

“[9] Parties have already made submissions on the incidence of costs. As in previous applications, the Claimant asks for no order as to costs. In my view, costs should follow event and the lack of merits in the present application is such that costs of the present application should be paid by the Claimant to the Respondent on an indemnity basis.

[10] It is appropriate for costs to be summarily assessed. I have considered the Respondent’s Bill of Costs. The present application does not warrant involvement of counsel. On a broad-brush basis, costs are summarily assessed at HK$20,000. Although the Claimant has made certain comments on the Respondent’s Bill of Costs, it is unclear whether such comments are intended to set out the Claimant’s full objections as no order has been made for him to do so. Out of an abundance of caution, the assessment is on a nisi basis. Absent any application to vary the nisi assessment within 14 days hereof, the assessment will become absolute.”

4.  In the words, the costs order made in the April Decision was an absolute order on the incidence of costs (“Costs Order Absolute”) but the summary assessment was on a nisi basis (“Assessment Nisi”).

5.  In the Claimant’s submissions dated 25 June 2024, the Claimant says that the appropriate costs order for the December Application should be no order as to costs. As such, the Claimant effectively seeks to appeal against the Costs Order Absolute.

6.  I agree with the following submissions made by the Respondent:

(1) the Claimant is procedurally incorrect to seek to “vary” the Costs Order Absolute as if it were a costs order nisi;

(2) as regards the Assessment Nisi, no submission is made by the Claimant on the quantum assessed;

(3) even were one to consider the Summons as an application for leave to appeal against the Costs Order Absolute, no error has been identified by the Claimant in his written submissions dated 25 June and 8 July 2024.

7.  For the above reasons, I dismiss the Summons. I also make the following nisi orders:

(1) The Claimant is to pay to the Respondent the costs of the Summons on an indemnity basis;

(2) The costs referred to in the preceding paragraph are summarily assessed[1] at HK$16,000[2].