|
HCCL 1/2007
[2019] HKCFI 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMMERCIAL ACTION NO 1 OF 2007
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
PT TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA |
Plaintiff |
| and |
| |
CITIBANK N.A. |
Defendant |
____________
Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Court
Dates of Hearing: 29-31 August, 3-4 and 7 September 2018
Date of Defendant’s Written Submissions: 19 November 2018
Date of Plaintiff’s Written Submissions: 30 November 2018
Date of Decision: 11 January 2019
__________________
D E C I S I O N
__________________
1. In the judgment dated 12 October 2018, this action was dismissed with costs to the Defendant. However, no provision was made for a certificate for 2 counsel. The Defendant had promptly applied to the court for clarification of the matter. This issue is now before the court for paper disposal after the parties had failed to come to an agreement.
2. Regrettably, the absence of a certificate for 2 counsel was a matter of omission by the court. With respect to the arguments advanced by the Plaintiff, it is plain from the judgment that this case involved complex issues of law, a large claim by the Plaintiff against a well-known bank and the Plaintiff was represented by senior and junior counsel at the trial. The can be little doubt that a certificate was justified.
3. I am also satisfied that the “slip rule” under O.20, r.11 can be invoked to remedy the omission. Accordingly, I grant a certificate for 2 counsel. The costs of and occasioned by this application should be borne by the Plaintiff, and I make an order nisi to that effect.
| |
(Anthony Chan) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Holman Fenwick Willan, for the Plaintiff
Mr John Hui, instructed by Clifford Chance, for the Defendant
|