Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HCA 2086/2014
B
C
_______________
E
F
G
BETWEEN
Plaintiff
G
H
and
1st Defendant
NG TING PONG ()
2nd Defendant
3rd Defendant
CHEN RAYMOND
4th Defendant
J
K
L
P
Q
R
S
T
U
J
K
L
M
_______________
Q
R
S
T
U
HCA 2104/2014
B
C
_______________
E
F
G
H
I
J
BETWEEN
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
1st Plaintiff
2nd Plaintiff
G
H
I
J
K
K
L
and
L
st
1 Defendant
NG TING PONG ()
2nd Defendant
M
N
O
P
rd
3 Defendant
Q
CHEN RAYMOND
____________________
th
4 Defendant
R
S
T
U
-3-
A
B
C
A.
INTRODUCTION
Judgment) continuing the injunction under these two actions that the
plaintiffs obtained on an ex parte basis on 20 October 2014. In the
Judgment, I also made an order nisi that costs of the applications to
K
L
M
O
P
Q
I
J
K
M
N
O
P
Q
R
R
S
3rd defendants seek to vary the costs order nisi to the extent that the costs
N
DECISION ON COSTS
S
T
U
-4-
A
B
otherwise stated. I will also not repeat herein any of the history and
matters that have already been set out in the Judgment.
B.
B1.
L
M
O
P
T
U
F
G
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
when the successful party at the end of the day may lose
N
cause.
6
I
J
R
S
T
-5-
A
B
(2)
(3)
J
K
M
N
R
S
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
that costs follow the event is not the starting position, but
only one of the options, for costs relating to interlocutory
S
T
U
-6-
F
G
HCA
574/2009,
14
May
2010,
per
Au
J)
at
costs order nisi was thus rightly and justly made in all the circumstances
T
U
K
L
M
N
O
B2.
Courts views
the court by taking into account all the circumstance of the case. In
particular, post CJR, the court should also take into account the
underlying objectives set out in Order 1A, rule 1 and the conduct of the
forthwith.
title to sue), and under the well established principles governing the grant
and the defendants are in fact lucky not to be required to pay the costs
N
HKLRD 667 at paragraphs 7 8, per Lam J (as the learned VP then was).
of the at the least arguable nature of the plaintiffs case (and thus their
J
H
I
R
S
parties: see Order 62, rule 5(1). In the context of the wide discretion, in
relation to costs in an interlocutory injunction, all the authorities,
T
U
-7-
including Order 62, rules 3(2) and (2A), cited by the parties, show that in
the exercise of that discretion, the court could take into account, among
F
G
H
I
only to bear the costs of the application if the successful party also
conduct of the parties and the reasonableness of resisting the application,
which may render it just to require the unsuccessful part to bear the costs
on a forthwith basis. In so exercising its discretion, the court must as
usual also take into account all the circumstances pertinent to that
Order 1A, rule 1.
Bearing these principles in mind, and looking at the
and just costs order should be that the plaintiffs costs be in the cause
H
I
J
(1)
(a)
M
N
O
P
Q
R
continuation application globally, I agree that in the present case, the fair
given in particular the following considerations:
10
without being dependent upon the final outcome of the action, and even
K
L
succeeds in the substantive action; (b) any facts or factors, including the
(b)
to
found
the
title
to
sue
are
not
U
-8-
A
B
(2)
subject roads in the way they did, and as such they would
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
substantive claims.
O
11
For these reasons, in my view, the fair and just costs order in
the circumstances of the present case should be that the plaintiffs costs
N
O
P
Q
be in the cause.
R
than the arguments on title to use, both this court and the
1
2
T
U
-9-
C.
CONCLUSION
12
I will therefore vary the costs order nisi to the extent that
proceedings be the plaintiffs costs in the cause, with certificate for two
E
F
G
H
I
13
submissions.
applications to vary the costs order nisi. I think it is only just that they
J
K
(Thomas Au)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U