XCHRX HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD. v. HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD.

HCA9172/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.9172 OF 2000

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1. On 24 November 2000, I ordered the costs of the plaintiff's application for injunction be costs in the cause and the defendant is to pay the plaintiff the costs occasioned by its application to discharge the injunction. The plaintiff applies to vary the order.

2. While the order is correct in principle because the hearing before me on 16 November 2000 was concerned with these two matters, there are obviously other specific matters which needed to be dealt with in light of the history of the litigation. Certificate for two counsel is agreed between the two parties.

3. Regarding the plaintiff's application for injunction, it is not disputed that the following order should be made : the costs of the plaintiff's ex parte application made on 23 September 2000 and the costs of the plaintiff's inter parte summons dated 25 September 2000 be costs in the cause with certificate for two counsel.

4. In regard to the defendant's application to discharge the injunction, it has to bear the costs of the summons to discharge dated 24 October 2000. It will also bear the costs of the hearing of 27 October 2000 which is the return date of its summons to discharge. The hearing date of the adjourned summons for the continuation of the injunction was originally fixed for 14 December 2000 which was the first available date of the court. The hearing on 27 October 2000 was caused solely by the defendant's application to discharge the injunction. It should bear the costs.

5. As to the costs occasioned by the summons to discharge the injunction, this is concerned with the nine affidavits that were filed by the parties between 19 October 2000 to 15 November 2000. Other than the costs of the affidavit of Anthony Siu which deals exclusively with the defendant's application to discharge and which the defendant is wholly liable, I will order half of the costs of the preparation of these affidavits as costs occasioned by the summons to discharge and which the defendant has to pay to the plaintiff. The other half of the costs of the preparation of these affidavits is occasioned by the plaintiff's application for injunction. This will be costs in the cause.

6. As to the hearing on 16 November 2000, although there were two matters before me, the time taken was, almost exclusively, concerned with the application to discharge. However, some allowance should be made in regard to the plaintiff's application. I will order 9/10 of the costs of that date be apportioned as the costs relating to the application to discharge. The defendant has to pay for these costs. The remaining 1/10 is costs related to the plaintiff's application for injunction which will be costs in the cause.

7. The defendant's summons of 24 October 2000 also included cross claims for injunction and discovery. These applications were abandoned on the hearing of 16 November 2000. There is no need to further apportion such costs.

8. Costs occasioned by the application to vary my earlier costs order including the costs of the hearing on 30 March 2001 be to the plaintiff.