LAU CHI CHING KAREN ALIAS LAU LAI YIN v. WING HANG BANK LTD

HCA 103/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 103 OF 2014

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.  Madam Lau by her summons dated 28 August 2014 applies to set aside my costs order nisi made in my decision dated 15 August 2014 (“the Decision”) whereby she is ordered to pay Wing Hang Bank Ltd (“the Bank”) the costs of this action to be taxed if not agreed upon my dismissal of her action against the Bank. Her present application is supported by her affirmation affirmed on 29 August 2014.

2.  I shall refer to the Decision for the background facts which will not be repeated here. Suffice it for the present purpose to say that I acceded to the striking out application of the Bank and accordingly I ordered that Madam Lau’s action be dismissed with costs to the Bank.

3.  I have perused the supporting affirmation of Madam Lau. There, basically Madam Lau disagrees with all my conclusions in the Decision. In doing so, Madam Lau also seeks to adduce new evidence.

4.  In this application, this court should review the appropriateness of the costs order nisi on the basis that the Bank’s application was rightly determined. In any event, this court is not convinced by any of the matters stated in Madam Lau’s affirmation that this court has erred in the Decision.

5.  Madam Lau puts forth no other ground why she should not pay the Bank its costs of the action including the hearing of the Bank’s application and all such reserved costs if any.

6.  That being the case, costs should follow the event and I see no reason to depart from this general principle. I thus order that the application of Madam Lau be dismissed and the costs order nisi be made absolute.

7.  As regards the costs of this application, Mr Tsang, counsel for the Bank, asks for costs to be borne by Madam Lau on an indemnity basis.

8.  An indemnity costs order is not to be made lightly and there has to be special or unusual features. In the particular circumstances of this matter, though I agree that Madam Lau’s application is plainly unmeritorious, I am not convinced that an indemnity costs order is justified. The Bank can only have its costs to be taxed on the usual basis.