TANG KIM KWAN PATRICK ALSO KNOWN AS PATRICK TANG AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI TING KAREN ALSO KNOWN AS KAREN LEE

HCA920/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 920 OF 2009

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

BETWEEN

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

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

DECISION ON COSTS

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

1.  In the judgment dated 26 June 2012 I made provision for the parties to be heard further in the event that they were unable to reach agreement as to an appropriate Order as to the costs of the action. The parties were unable to reach such agreement and accordingly submissions were made to me on 24 August 2012, written submissions having previously been served.

2.  Each party has advanced submissions as to why they ought to be considered to have been the successful party and, therefore entitled, prima facie, to their costs.  Each recognises that the other party has achieved some success which ought to be reflected in the costs award made.

3.  The starting point it seems to me is that the Claimant was partially successful in its claim.  The corollorary is that the Respondent was successful in part in its defence, but that can only result, in the circumstances of the case, in an order in favour of the Respondent if the issues in the case are considered as being separate issues, each deserving separate treatment in regard to costs.

4.  I do not think such separate treatment is warranted on the facts since, as the Claimant submits, there was much common background to the four transactions in question including issues of general credibility.  The disputes were as to four properties, but flowed out of the former relationship between the parties.  While, in my view, an issue-based approach to costs orders may be appropriate in circumstances where the issues in the dispute are truly distinct, in my judgment this is not such a case, or at least not to a significant extent.

5.  Viewing the case as one overall dispute it seems to me that the Claimant is correct to submit that it has a prima facie entitlement to its costs as the overall successful party.  Moreover I accept the submission that my decision as to costs should reflect also the fact that, in part, my judgment has been to the effect that the Defendant acted in breach of trust in relation to the Metro Harbour View property.  Nevertheless it is appropriate, as the Plaintiff acknowledges, that the costs order reflect the success enjoyed by the Defendant.

6.  Having regard to the above, the Order I make is that the Plaintiffs are to have one half of their costs to be paid by the Defendant, to be taxed if not agreed on a party and party basis.