|
HCCT 29/2013
[2018] HKCFI 620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
NO 29 OF 2013
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
CHUN WO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
METTA RESOURCES LIMITED |
Defendant |
________________________
Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 22 March 2018
Date of Decision: 22 March 2018
____________________
D E C I S I O N
____________________
1. This is Chun Wo[1]’s application for clarification of paras 2 and 3 of the Judgment filed on 23 February 2017 (Judgment) which provided as follows:
“2. 70% of the costs of and occasioned by this Action be paid by Metta to Chun Wo on the party-and-party basis, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for four counsel; and
3. there be no order as to the costs of the counterclaim.”
2. The costs order was made after a hearing on 15 February 2017: see Decision of that date (Decision).
3. The issue here is whether Chun Wo’s costs entitlement under para 2 of the Judgment should embrace its costs of the counterclaim because there was overlap between the action and counterclaim (Chun Wo relies on the decision of this court on a security for costs application: Chun Wo v Metta [2016] 2 HKLRD 1280, §21).
4. By its Summons filed on 18 October 2017 (Summons), Chun Wo seeks to have para 3 of the Judgment amended as follows:
“there be no order as to Metta’s own costs of the counterclaim.”
5. I agree that the court has the power to clarify its judgment if it fails to express the intention of the court: see Man Ping Nam v Man Fong Hang (No 2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 140, §§10-11.
6. However, firstly, there is nothing unclear about paras 2 and 3 of the Judgment on their face.
7. Further, it must be remembered that Metta had partly succeeded in its counterclaim (see paras 8 and 10 of the Decision). It should also be said that whilst Chun Wo was the overall winner, the judgment sum was a fraction of its claim.
8. Paras 2 and 3 of the Judgment correctly reflected the intention of this court, and that is the end of this application.
9. Accordingly, the Summons is dismissed with costs to Metta, to be taxed if not agreed.
| |
(Anthony Chan) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Jonathan Wong, instructed by J Chan, Yip, So & Partners, for the Plaintiff
Mr Anthony HK Chan, instructed by Hogan Lovells, for the Defendant
[1] The nomenclature employed in the Judgment dated 19 August 2016 is adopted herein.
|