NG HUNG KWONG TOMMY v. VIPIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

DCCJ1608/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1608 OF 2006

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.  The Plaintiff applies to vary the order nisi for costs made by me on 22 January 2008, namely, the 1st Defendant do pay costs of this action to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel, and that the Plaintiff do pay costs of this action to the 2nd Defendant, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.

2.  The Plaintiff submits that it is reasonable to sue both Defendants.  It is the Plaintiff’s evidence, which I accepted, that Dora Chan of the 2nd Defendant told the Plaintiff that the property in question had been rewired after the 1st Defendant had purchased it in 2004 and that it had invested several hundred thousands of dollars to renovate and upgrade the Property.  Relying on these representations the Plaintiff entered into a preliminary tenancy agreement with the 1st Defendant. 

3.  Dora Chan said that the representations came from Leung Cheuk See Beatrice of the 1st Defendant.

4.  The entering of the tenancy agreement of the Property was through the interactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.  It would not be easy for the Plaintiff to understand and to ascertain the relationship between the two Defendants.  As a matter of commonsense the representations must have come from the consensus of the two Defendants.  It must be the 1st Defendant which renovated the Property, and it must be the 1st defendant which passed on such information to the 2nd Defendant.  Therefore it must be reasonable to sue both Defendants.  The representations turned out subsequently to be misrepresentations.  The Plaintiff could not tell at which point of time the representations became misrepresentations.  That point of time will decide which Defendant, or both Defendants, is liable for these misrepresentations.  There are vicissitudes in litigation.  So it is not unreasonable to sue both Defendants in order for the Plaintiff to get the damages he suffered, so that in the course of the trial the truth will come out.

5.  In this case, the wrongdoer is the 1st Defendant.

6.  I therefore make the variation in the costs order nisi.  I order that:

(1) The 1st Defendant do pay costs of this action to the Plaintiff, to be taxed, if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.

(2) The Plaintiff do pay costs of this action to the 2nd Defendant, to be taxed, if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.

(3)  The 1st Defendant is to reimburse the costs payable to the 2nd Defendant by the Plaintiff.

(4)  Costs of today’s hearing to be costs in the cause of the whole action.