|
HCA002008A/2003
HCA2008/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO.2008 OF 2003
---------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
PROFIT NATION DEVELOPMENT LTD |
1st Defendant |
|
GOLD-FACE HOLDINGS LTD |
2nd Defendant |
|
GOLD-FACE FINANCE LTD |
3rd Defendant |
|
TAI CHI WAH |
4th Defendant |
---------------------
Coram: Hon Tang J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 19 May 2004
Date of Further Written Submission by the Plaintiff: 7 July 2004
Date of Further Written Submission by the Defendant: 14 July 2004
Date of Ruling on Costs: 4 August 2004
---------------------------------------------
RULING ON COSTS
---------------------------------------------
1. There are two outstanding issues on costs.
| (1) |
Certificate for two counsel. |
|
|
| (2) |
The 1st defendant's costs in relation to its application for a stay for arbitration regarding. |
2. Both parties were represented by leading counsel and the only difference is that in the case of the plaintiff, a junior counsel was also instructed.
3. Having regard to the amount claimed (some $21 million) and the complicated legal and factual issues involved, I would grant a certificate for two counsel. This is a case where it was clearly necessary and proper to instruct leading counsel. I believe the same can be said of instructing junior counsel as well. The hearing lasted one day instead of the estimated three days, because of the clear presentation of the issues by counsel in the skeleton as well as oral submissions. The help of junior counsel in the preparation (not just in the argument but in the marshalling of evidence to be presented to the court) should not be under estimated.
4. The plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant was divided into two parts, one for $11,402,800 and the other for $10,000,000. In relation to the former, judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff. In relation to the latter, a stay was ordered. But as I have said in para. 46 of the judgment, it was academic because in HCA3521/2003, which was heard at the same time, judgment was given against the 1st defendant for the same amount.
5. At the hearing, no appreciable time was spent on the claim for $10,000,000. In all the circumstances, I do not believe I should make an order for costs in the 1st defendant's favour in relation to the stay.
6. The defendants were concerned about double recovery of costs.
7. No doubt when it came to taxation, there would be no double recovery of costs by the plaintiff, although it was awarded costs in HCA3521/2003 as well as in this action.
8. So the order for costs is that the plaintiff is to have the costs of the action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. Such costs, of course, would include the costs of the application for summary judgment as well as the application for stay, with certificate for two counsel in relation to the hearing before me. The costs of the application against the 4th defendant will be costs in the cause.
|
(Robert Tang) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
|
High Court |
Representation:
Mr Warren Chan, SC and Mr Law Man Chung, instructed by Messrs Lily Fenn & Partners, for the Plaintiff
Mr Clifford Smith, instructed by Messrs Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co., for the Defendants
|