|
HCA002011A/2003
HCA2011/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO.2011 OF 2003
---------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
CHINA OVERSEAS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LTD |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
TRUE GOLD INVESTMENTS LTD |
1st Defendant |
|
GOLD-FACE HOLDINGS LTD |
2nd Defendant |
|
GOLD-FACE FINANCE LTD |
3rd Defendant |
|
TAI CHI WAH |
4th Defendant |
|
TAI CHIN WAH |
5th Defendant |
----------------------
Coram: Hon Tang J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 19 May 2004
Date of Further Written Submission by the Plaintiff: 7 July 2004
Date of Further Written Submission by the Defendant: 14 July 2004
Date of Ruling on Costs: 4 August 2004
-----------------------------------------
RULING ON COSTS
-----------------------------------------
1. There are also two issues :
| (1) |
certificate for two counsel; and |
|
|
| (2) |
the 1st defendant's costs in relation to the stay of the plaintiff's claim against the 1st defendant for $30,417,991. |
2. On (1), I will grant a certificate for two counsel for the reasons stated in my costs ruling in HCA2008/2003 of today's date.
3. As for (2), the stay is not academic and the 1st defendant is entitled to the costs attributable to its success on this point. Here, the application for stay related to the entirety of the plaintiff's claim, namely, $50,644,791. The 1st defendant succeeded as to $30,417,991. So the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were each partly successful.
4. I would not apportion costs according to the amount. In all circumstance, I think no order as to costs to be fair, although the time taken on the points on which the plaintiff succeeded probably exceeded the time taken on the points on which the 1st defendant succeeded. So there will be no order as to costs relating to the 1st defendant's application for a stay.
5. The plaintiff is to have costs of the action, including the costs of the Order 14 summons against all the defendants, with certificate for two counsel for the hearing before me. There is to be no order as to costs in relation to the 1st defendant's application for a stay. However the plaintiff is to have the costs of the application for a stay against the 2nd and 3rd defendants in respect of their application for a stay.
|
(Robert Tang) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
|
High Court |
Representation:
Mr Warren Chan, SC and Mr Law Man Chung, instructed by Messrs Lily Fenn & Partners, for the Plaintiff
Mr Clifford Smith, instructed by Messrs Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co., for the Defendants
|