COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. CROWN BRILLIANCE LTD

HCIA 1/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INLAND REVENUE APPEAL NO 1 OF 2015

____________

____________________________

DECISION ON COSTS
____________________________

1.  Having considered the written submissions lodged pursuant to the direction in paragraph 28 of my judgment dated 14 October 2015, I think that the appropriate costs order is that each party should bear its own costs.

2.  Although the appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the Board of Review, of the three questions stated in the Case, only Question 1 was answered by this court in favour of the appellant.  The appeal was allowed because of an error of law on the part of the Board, which was not entirely attributable to the respondent who was not legally represented before the Board.

3.  Further, the respondent did not contest Question 1.  It took a neutral stance.  Indeed, the respondent had on 4 September 2015, prior to the hearing, offered for the appeal to be allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.  However, the letter also included the proposal for leave to be granted for the respondent to adduce further evidence to the Board, which was not part of the direction given by the court as a result of the appeal.

4.  Taking a broad-brush approach, in these circumstances I think the just outcome is that there should be no order as to costs.