|
HCAP 22/2019
[2024] HKCFI 1251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
PROBATE ACTION NO 22 OF 2019
____________________
| |
IN THE ESTATE OF CHOW YEI CHING (周亦) late of 9 Henderson Road, Jardine’s Lookout, Hong Kong, Merchant, deceased (“the Deceased”) |
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
CHOW LILY (周莉莉) |
Plaintiff |
|
AND |
|
|
CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET (周蕙蕙) |
1st Defendant |
|
CHOW VI VI (周薇薇) |
2nd Defendant |
__________________
| Before: |
Hon K Yeung J in Chambers |
| Dates of Written Submissions and Reply by the 1st and 2nd Defendants: |
12 and 24 April 2024 |
| Date of Written Submissions by the Plaintiff: |
19 April 2024 |
| Date of Decision on Costs: |
9 May 2024 |
____________________
DECISION
ON COSTS
____________________
1. By my Decision handed down on 22 March 2024[1] (the “Decision”), I make a costs order nisi that P shall bear 60% of the costs of and occasioned by the Summons and this appeal, with certificate for 2 counsel when 2 were involved, to be summarily assessed (the “Costs Order Nisi”).
2. By letter of 26 March 2024, Ds sought an order that the Costs Order Nisi be varied to the extent that P’s costs liability should be increased to 90%.
3. Pursuant to directions which this Court subsequently gave, parties have filed their written submissions in support and opposition. I have considered those submissions.
4. As I have stated in §90 of the Decision, in making the Costs Order Nisi, I have considered the overall conclusion which I had reached, the number of the Disputed Paragraphs which appeal I had dismissed and their relative importance.
5. In relation to the relative importance of the Disputed Paragraphs, I repeat §§52, 65, 73 and 79. §311 goes to the primary issues. P is successful in that regard. To this extent, I agree with P’s submissions.
6. Ds submit that those of the Disputed Paragraphs which relate to Ma, Kuok and Tam have been excluded entirely, that P was unreasonable in introducing them in the first place, and that P disregarded the underlying objectives in doing so.
7. In my view, those factors have adequately been reflected by P being required to bear 60% of the costs here and below.
8. In all the circumstances, I refuse the application to vary the Costs Order Nisi, and make the same absolute.
9. I order that Ds shall bear the costs of this application to vary, also to be summarily assessed.
10. Ds shall within 14 days from the date of this decision lodge their statement of costs, P to lodge her statement of objection 7 days afterwards, and Ds to lodge their reply within 7 days afterwards.
11. In that same time frame, P shall lodge her statement of costs for this application to vary, Ds to lodge their statement of objection, and P to lodge her reply.
| |
(Keith Yeung) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
| |
High Court |
Written Submissions by Lily Fenn & Partners, for the Plaintiff
Written Submissions and Reply by Ms Teresa Wu and Ms Jacqueline Law, instructed by P.C. Woo & Co, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants
|