LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 4699/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4699 OF 2001

____________

____________

__________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

__________________________

1. The plaintiff applied to amend her statement of claim. The defendants opposed the application. I gave my reasons on 3 April 2012 in favour of the plaintiff. I made a costs order nisi as follows:

“47. I also make a costs order nisi that the costs of and occasioned by the plaintiff’s application to amend be to the defendants in any event save that the defendants do pay the plaintiff the costs of the opposition and the costs reserved in this application in any event.”

2. The solicitors for the plaintiff applied by letter for variation of the costs order nisi to the extent that the defendants do pay the plaintiff the costs of the opposition and the costs reserved forthwith to be taxed if not agreed.

3. The plaintiff’s grounds are that she has succeeded despite the repeated oppositions by the defendants and their attempts to adjourn the matter on the 2nd defendant’s medical ground.  The defendants have lost their opposition and they should not be encouraged to oppose interlocutory applications unnecessarily or inappropriately.

4. The defendants opposed the plaintiff’s application to vary the order nisi.  The grounds are that the opposition to the application to amend was not frivolous or without merits and that costs could be set-off at the end of the trial.  The defendants also pointed out that the plaintiff’s intention to engage counsel to oppose the defendants’ intended application for leave to appeal against the leave given for amendment shows that the defendants’ opposition was not lacking in merits.

5. I would not say that the defendants’ opposition was frivolous, but the grounds tendered for the opposition were indeed devoid of merits.

6. Since the CJR, unmeritorious interlocutory applications or unmeritorious oppositions to interlocutory applications usually attract costs orders that are implemented immediately if the amount of costs are immediately ascertainable.  This is to discourage unmeritorious interlocutory applications or oppositions.  There is no special reason in this case for deviation from this practice.

7. For these reasons, I vary the costs order nisi to the extent that the defendants do pay the plaintiff the costs occasioned by the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiff’s application to amend her statement of claim and the costs reserved in this application and that such costs are to be taxed, if not agreed, and paid forthwith. 

8. I further order that the plaintiff do file and serve a bill of costs within the next 7 days for summary assessment unless the amount of costs can be agreed within this period.  The defendants do file and serve their grounds of objections, if any, within 7 days thereafter.