TANG WOUNG SHIU v. TANG KUN YEUNG AND ANOTHER

HCA 5527/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 5527 OF 1998

______________________

DECISION ON COSTS

______________________ 

1. I make an order for costs against the plaintiff on an indemnity basis in respect of the summonses. 

2. The summonses were, in my view, misconceived.  They should never have been taken out. 

3. O. 62, r. 35 R.H.C. which deals with review of taxing master’s certificate by a judge is based on the premise that there has already been a review of the taxation by the taxing master pursuant to an application for review under r. 33.  There was never any application to a taxing master to review under r. 33.  There was no review by the taxing master under r. 34 and hence the applications by the plaintiff were misconceived by applying to a judge to review in the situation where there was never any review by the taxing master. 

4. It seems to me that it is right that costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis and I so order.