PROGETTO JEWELLERY CO LTD v. LAU CHIU YING AND ANOTHER

HCA 2548/2014

[2020] HKCFI 2179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2548 OF 2014

________________________

________________________

\

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  This Court has handed down the following in these proceedings:

(1)     the Main Judgment dated 22 January 2020, in which I ruled in favour of PJ and against Joy and JD on various major issues;

(2)     the Time Decision dated 12 June 2020, in which I dismissed Joy’s application for leave to appeal against the Main Judgment out of time; and

(3)     Reasons for Decision dated 6 August 2020, in which I set out the reasons for refusing a stay of execution of the Main Judgment pending the outcome of Joy’s application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the Time Decision out of time (“the Refusal Decision”).

This decision should be read together with the aforesaid judgment and decisions.

2.  On 12 August 2020, Joy took out a summons (“the 1^st Summons”) for leave to appeal against the Refusal Decision and the costs order made by me in the Refusal Decision (“the 2^nd Costs Order”).  By the 2^nd Costs Order, I ordered that costs of the Joy’s stay application be to PJ, and summarily assessed those costs at HK$38,000.  On 14 August 2020, PJ’s solicitors wrote to the Court, setting out their preliminary view on the 1^st Summons and suggesting that the 1^st Summon should be determined on the papers without an oral hearing. On 17 August 2020, I directed that the 1^st Summons would be determined on the papers, and Joy should provide her written submissions to the Court.

3.  On 17 August 2020, Joy issued another summons (“the 2^nd Summons”).  On the face of the 2^nd Summons, Joy is seeking leave to appeal against the costs order made by me in the Time Decision (“the 1^st Costs Order”).  On 18 August 2020, PJ’s solicitors provided their preliminary view on the 2^nd Summons and asked for paper disposal of the 2^nd Summons.  On 19 August 2020, I directed that the 2^nd Summons would be dealt with on the papers without an oral hearing, and Joy should provide her written submissions to the Court.

4.  After considering all the materials provided by Joy, I am of the view that the applications as per the 1^st Summons and the 2^nd Summons are unmeritorious and must be dismissed.  I have no need to call upon PJ’s solicitors to provide me detailed written submissions in relation to the 2 summonses.

1^st Summons

5.  Joy’s application for leave to appeal against the Refusal Decision is misconceived.  A stay application, after being refused by the court below, may be made to the Court of Appeal.  No leave is required. The application to the Court of Appeal is not an appeal.  See Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2020, Volume 1, §59/13/7.  It is not necessary and incorrect to try to challenge the Refusal Decision by an appeal.

6.  As to the 2^nd Costs Order, Joy failed in her stay application and costs should follow the event. In respect of the amount provided in the 2^nd Costs Order, having considered the bill of costs dated 29 July 2020 provided by PJ’s solicitors, I took the view that the costs as per the said bill were reasonable, save that the total time spent by the handling solicitor as set out in section D of the bill should be reduced to 2 hours.  Taking a broad-brush approach, I summarily assessed the total amount of costs at HK$38,000.  I do not see any merit in Joy’s intended challenge against the 2^nd Costs Order.

7.  There is no reasonable prospect of success in Joy’s intended appeal against the Refusal Decision, including the 2^nd Costs Order therein.  There is also no reason that the intended appeal should be heard in the interests of justice.  The 1^st Summons must be dismissed.

2^nd Summons

8.  The 1^st Costs Order was made on 12 June 2020, and the summary assessment was done on 24 June 2020. The 2^nd Summons was only taken out on 17 August 2020. Accordingly, Joy’s application for leave to appeal against the 1^st Costs Order is out of time.

9.  The application is devoid of any merit.

(1)     Joy failed in the application as per her summons dated 21 May 2020.  Costs should follow the event.

(2)     PJ’s solicitors have set out the costs incurred by PJ in that application in their bill of costs dated 19 June 2020.  Having considered the said bill, I took the view that the costs as set out therein were reasonable, save that the total time spent by the handling solicitor in section C and section D should be reduced to 1.5 hours and 2 hours respectively.  Taking a broad-brush approach, I summarily assessed the total amount of the costs at HK$39,000.

(3)     There is no merit in Joy’s intended challenge against the 1^st Costs Order.

10.  As there is no merit in the 2^nd Summons, the summons must be dismissed.  There is also no reason that the intended appeal against the 1^st Costs Order should be heard in the interests of justice.

Disposition

11.  I dismiss both the 1^st Summons and the 2^nd Summons.

12.  Costs should follow the event.  There be a costs order that costs of these 2 summonses be paid by Joy to PJ forthwith.   In relation to the 1^st Summons and the 2^nd Summons, PJ seeks costs of HK$5,800 and HK$6,380 respectively.  In my view, these are reasonable sums.  I allow the amounts claimed by PJ in full.