LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 4699/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4699 OF 2001

____________

BETWEEN

____________

___________________________

DECISIONON COSTS

___________________________

1.  Master Yu made a decision against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants. The defendants launched an appeal against the decision. The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 20 March 2012.

2.  The 2nd defendant on 20 January 2012 applied to adjourn the hearing of the appeal on medical grounds.  After considering the submissions from both sides, I dismissed the 2nd defendant’s application on 31 January 2012 for want of sufficient reason for adjournment. 

3.  The 2nd defendant renewed his application for adjournment on 3 February 2012.  After considering further evidence and submissions, I dismissed the renewed application on 15 February 2012 on the ground that there had been no significant change in the 2nd defendant’s medical conditions since February 2011.  I also reserved the costs of the application and the renewed application to be dealt with at the end of the hearing of the appeal.

4.  The 2nd defendant applied again on 23 February 2012 for reconsideration of his application to adjourn.  I again dismissed it after considering various medical reports.

5.  The defendants later withdrew their appeal. The costs of the 2nd defendant’s applications for adjournment were therefore not dealt with.

6.  The plaintiff through counsel’s written submissions filed on 22 March 2012 sought costs of the applications for adjournment to be paid by the 2nd defendant.

7.  The 2nd defendant opposed the application.  He submitted that he was acting in person and sought the adjournment on the recommendation of his doctor that he was not fit to attend the appeal.  His application was purely based on medical reason and he did not intend it to become a major dispute involving the other party.

8.  He further submitted that the court should not punish him with costs for his legitimate and timely application which was based on health reasons.  He also referred to the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting this action.

9.  I remind myself the usual rule that the loser of an application is liable for the opponent’s costs for opposing it.

10.  The fact that the applications by the 2nd defendant were based on medical ground and his health reasons is insufficient to displace this rule.  The plaintiff has also not done anything in the applications which could invoke the court’s discretion to deviate from this rule.

11.  I also take the view that the applications to adjourn, if successful, would have a profound effect on the progress of the action.  The adjournment, if granted, could have put the action on hold to the grave prejudice of the plaintiff.

12.  I therefore order the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of his applications to adjourn.

13.  I further direct the 2nd defendant to state his objections, if any, to the plaintiff’s bill of costs for summary assessment dated 22 March 2012 by a letter to reach the court by fax no later than 25 July 2012 for the court’s consideration in assessing the amount of costs payable by him.