|
CAMP 85/2022 & CACV 454/2022
(Heard together)
[2023] HKCA 274
CAMP 85/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 85 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO 2988 OF 2018)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HALLER AG |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
DFT DEUTSCHE FINETRADING AG |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
VESTEY INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
CHINA MEHECO CORPORATION |
2nd Defendant |
| |
BANK OF CHINA LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
| |
|
(Discontinued) |
________________________
CACV 454/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 454 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 2988 OF 2018)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HALLER AG |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
DFT DEUTSCHE FINETRADING AG |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
VESTEY INTERNATIONAL GROUP LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
CHINA MEHECO CORPORATION |
2nd Defendant |
| |
BANK OF CHINA LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
| |
|
(Discontinued) |
________________________
(Heard together)
| Before: |
Hon Chu VP and G Lam JA in Court |
| Date of Decision on Summary Assessment of Costs: |
3 March 2023 |
______________________________________________________________
DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
______________________________________________________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Decision on Summary Assessment of Costs of the Court):
1. In our judgment on the appeal handed down on 21 November 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1743), we made an order nisi that the plaintiffs are to pay two-thirds of the 2nd defendant’s costs both here and below, with a certificate for two counsel. It was subsequently directed, by consent, that the 2nd defendant’s costs in this court (i.e. in relation to CAMP 85/2022 and CACV 454/2022) be summarily assessed by this court. This is our decision on the assessment.
2. The relevant items of costs for present purposes are set out in Part 3 of the 2nd defendant’s statement of costs, with a total amount of $922,783 (before applying the proportion of two-thirds). There is some force in the plaintiffs’ objection that part of the work for the application to this court for leave to appeal would have been done in the application to the court below for leave to appeal, the costs of which are included in Part 2 of the statement of costs.
3. Having reviewed all relevant materials, we assess the total amount of Part 3 in the sum of $600,000. Two-thirds of that will be $400,000.
(Carlye Chu)
Vice President
|
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
Messrs. Lau, Horton & Wise LLP, for the Plaintiffs (Respondents)
Messrs. DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the 2nd Defendant (Appellant)
|