CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (ASIA) CORPORATION LTD v. KLARENKEN ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 1515/2023

[2024] HKCFI 3636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1515 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.  For reasons set out in my Decision handed down on 31 October 2024[1], I dismissed D1 and D2’s appeal. Given the terms of the General Agreement and the 13/4/2017 Guarantee, I made an order nisi that D1 and D2 shall bear the costs of these appeals on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed. The costs order nisi has since become absolute.

2.  I have considered the Statement of Costs lodged by P, the Lists of Objections lodged separately by D1 and D2 (though the contents are materially the same), and P’s Reply.

3.  Where costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis, all costs are to be allowed except those unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount, the receiving party being given the benefit of any doubt – Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, §62/App/11.  I have also considered David John Kennedy v Kelly Cheng [2012] 6 HKC 440 (and as summarised at Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025 §62/28/2).

4.  The main thrust of D1 and D2’s objections is that the appeal was a rehearing, and that most work done for the hearing before Master Rita So could be reused.

5.  I however accept P’s submissions that the emphasis of D1 and D2 cases as presented and pressed had changed.  In particular, during the appeal, the Discharge Defence was heavily relied upon. 

6.  I have considered the Statement of Costs.  I have no basis to say that any of the costs were unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount.

7.  I summarily assess the costs which D1 and D2 have to bear at HK$650,000.