TANG HUNG ON v. CROWN RICH TRANSPORTATION LTD AND OTHERS

HCPI 304/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 304 OF 2006

____________

________________________

RULING ON COSTS

________________________

1.  This personal injury action proceeded to trial on 12 and 13 January 2010, with a reserved decision being handed down on 21 January 2010, and a subsequent argument on costs being heard on 10 February 2010, with a reserved ruling being handed down on 12 March 2010.

2.  In the costs ruling I ordered that the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants should jointly bear the Plaintiff’s costs of the action up to and including 22 June 2009.  Now a dispute remains as to the apportionment of those costs between the Defendants.

3.  The 1^st Defendant says the apportionment should be 50% to be paid by the 1^st Defendant, and 50% to be paid by the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants. The solicitors for the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants seek a ruling on the issue but make no submission as to the apportionment.

4.  The costs are to be apportioned 50% to be paid by the 1^st Defendant, and 50% to be paid by the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants.

5.  A second dispute is as to the entitlement of the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants to recover costs paid by them to the Plaintiff arising out of the hearing on 10 February 2010. The 1^st Defendant says that there was an order that the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants should pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the hearing on 10 February 2010.  There was no such order.  I note that from the transcript appears that the questions of costs of the costs argument was raised by Mr. Lim, and I indicated that I would make an order nisi.  In fact the ruling did not contain an order nisi.

6.  Having reviewed the transcript and the reasons for the various orders made in the ruling, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff’s costs arising out of the hearing on 10 February 2010, should be paid by the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants in the same proportion as for the costs of the action up to and including 22 June 1999.  I accordingly allow the 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th Defendants to recover from the 1^st Defendant 50% of the Plaintiff’s taxed costs in respect of the hearing of 10 February 2010.  I understand that to amount to the sum of $21,673.10.

7.  There will be no order for costs on the costs argument.