INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. VEE PEE GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERD

HCMP 2114/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2114 OF 2011

________________________

____________________

____________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.  Having considered the written submissions in relation to the basis of costs I have concluded that the usual order for costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party and party basis will apply.

2.  Dealing with the three grounds advanced by the plaintiff for a higher basis I make the following comments.

3.  The fact that the defence was so lacking in credibility is not an unusual feature in such cases.  In some respects the fact that a case turns on credibility of the prime witnesses makes it an easier case to prepare and try. Therefore it is not an unusual or special feature.

4.  Secondly, the offer to settle was not backed up by an open offer with a threatened sanction as to costs.  Although I have some sympathy with the plaintiff on this aspect, I should not treat it in the same way as if it had been an open offer under the rules.  It was part of an unproductive negotiation.

5.  Finally, although the terms of the charge provided for a solicitor and own client basis, I do not think it fair to transpose that basis (albeit agreed in the context of the mortgage arrangement) to this litigation.  I think it was somewhat onerous in any event and therefore should not support it by applying it to this dispute.

6.  I am satisfied that the party and party basis provides appropriate remuneration for the plaintiff’s solicitors.