CHOW HING ERIC v. WIDE LAND PURCHASING CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 483/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.483 of 2009

(On an intended appeal from HCCW No.868 of 2005)

___________________________

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

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

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

Hon. Yuen JA (giving the decision of the Court):

1.  On 18 June 2009 we heard the Applicant’s 2 summonses for:

(1) extension of time to appeal (adjourned from 9 April 2009); and

(2) leave to adduce fresh evidence at his intended appeal.

At the conclusion of the hearing we reserved judgment but to save the parties’ time and costs of returning to court to argue costs, we asked for the parties’ positions on the question of costs.

2.  Both parties agreed that the costs should be awarded to the successful party, as is the usual practice.

3.  As for the quantum of costs, the Respondents provided two statements of assessment of their costs (one for the hearing on 9 April 2009) and asked for gross sum assessment.The Applicant indicated that he would like time to consider an objection.

4.  Accordingly we directed that if the Applicant wished to object to the quantum of costs, he should do so in writing within 14 days of the date of the judgment.And should the Respondents wish to reply to the Applicant’s objection, they should do so within 14 days after receipt of the Applicant’s objection.We would then give our assessment in writing.

5.  On 19 June 2009 we handed down judgment dismissing both summonses.The Respondents having succeeded, they should have the costs of the proceedings.

6.  On 2 July 2009 the Applicant sent to the Court a letter saying simply that he did not agree with the Respondents’ assessment of costs, and asked the court for 評核 (which we understand to mean taxation).

7.  On 14 July 2009 the Respondents replied to the Applicant’s letter justifying their assessment.

8.  We see no ground to send this case for taxation.As far as the adjourned hearing on 9 April 2009 was concerned, the Applicant had paid into court a sum of $25,000 being costs thrown away by the adjournment.We would order that this sum be paid out to the Respondents and taking these summonses into account as a whole, we would order that the Applicant pay a further sum of $25,000 to the Respondents as costs.