|
LDBM 299/2012
IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2012
__________________________
BETWEEN
| |
CHOW CHUI CHUI |
1st Applicant |
| |
LAM KAM CHUNG |
2nd Applicant |
| |
CHU CHIT YAN |
3rd Applicant |
| |
LEUNG CHUNG CHIU |
4th Applicant |
| |
CHAN HING CHUN |
5th Applicant |
| |
HO WAN FUN |
6th Applicant |
| |
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
KA WING BUILDING |
7th Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
1st Respondent |
| |
CHAN SING HO |
2nd Respondent |
| |
FIRM HOME PROPERTIES LIMITED |
3rd Respondent |
| |
AU NGO SUET |
4th Respondent
(Discontinued) |
| |
CHAINWILL INVESTMENT LIMITED |
5th Respondent |
| |
POLITFORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED |
6th Respondent |
__________________________
LDBM 108/2013
IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2013
__________________________
BETWEEN
| |
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
KA WING BUILDING |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHOW CHUI CHUI |
1st Respondent |
| |
LAM KAM CHUNG |
2nd Respondent |
| |
CHU CHIT YAN |
3rd Respondent |
| |
LEUNG CHUNG CHIU |
4th Respondent |
| |
LAU CHOR SANR |
5th Respondent |
| |
CHAN HING CHUN |
6th Respondent |
| |
HO WAN FUN |
7th Respondent |
__________________________
| Coram: Deputy Judge Tracy Chan, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal |
Date of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie’s Application:
Date of Messrs. Chung & Kwan’s Application:
Date of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie’s Submission:
Date of Messrs. Chung & Kwan’s Submission:
Date of Decision: |
15 September 2014
17 September 2014
29 September 2014
3 October 2014
14 October 2014 |
__________________________________
D E C I S I O N
[Variation of Costs Order Nisi]
____________________________________
1. The Substituting MC Members asked for variation of the costs order nisi made on 4 September 2014 on the 2 actions herein. The issue taken is whether counsel certificate should be granted.
2. The Substituting MC Members asked that there be no certificate for counsel as it was not justified by the complexity or otherwise simplicity of the issues. I could not agree. The main issue raised at the trial had not been determined by any other courts before. There were indeed not much factual disputes. Arguments were mainly on the interpretation of the DMC and Sub-DMCs and the interpretation and application of the BMO. These are legal arguments. I am of the view that it was not unreasonable to brief counsel to assist the court in dealing with these legal arguments.
3. Further, the fact that the solicitors acting for the Substituting MC Members had put in 21 pages for an opening and 38 pages for their closing submissions is good indication that the issues involved are not simple and straight forward.
4. The Substituting Members’ application for variation of the costs order nisi is therefore refused.
5. Costs of this application be to the Former MC Members, to be taxed at District Court Scale with no counsel certificate. This is order nisi to become absolute if no application is made to vary the same within 14 days from date of this decision.
6. Whether costs shall be awarded to the 7th Applicant under LDBM 299/2012 shall be dealt with upon determination of the application made by it which is to be heard on 29 October 2014.
| |
Deputy Judge Tracy Chan |
| |
Presiding Officer
Lands Tribunal |
LDBM 299/2012
Mr Paul Wu, instructed by Messrs. Chung & Kwan, for the 1st to 7th Applicants
Mr Anthony Poon, of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie, for the 1st to 3rd, and 5th to 6th Respondents
LDBM 108/2013
Mr Anthony Poon, of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie, for the Applicant
Mr Paul Wu, instructed by Messrs. Chung & Kwan, for the 1st to 4th, and 6th to 7th Respondents
The 5th Respondent, acting in person, absent
|