CHOW CHUI CHUI AND OTHERS v. KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

LDBM 299/2012

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 299 OF 2012

__________________________

BETWEEN

CHOW CHUI CHUI 1st Applicant
LAM KAM CHUNG 2nd Applicant
CHU CHIT YAN 3rd Applicant
LEUNG CHUNG CHIU 4th Applicant
CHAN HING CHUN 5th Applicant
HO WAN FUN 6th Applicant
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KA WING BUILDING 7th Applicant
and
KAFULL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 1st Respondent
CHAN SING HO 2nd Respondent
FIRM HOME PROPERTIES LIMITED 3rd Respondent
AU NGO SUET 4th Respondent
(Discontinued)
CHAINWILL INVESTMENT LIMITED 5th Respondent
POLITFORD INVESTMENTS LIMITED 6th Respondent

__________________________

LDBM 108/2013

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2013

__________________________

BETWEEN

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
KA WING BUILDING
Applicant
and
CHOW CHUI CHUI 1st Respondent
LAM KAM CHUNG 2nd Respondent
CHU CHIT YAN 3rd Respondent
LEUNG CHUNG CHIU 4th Respondent
LAU CHOR SANR 5th Respondent
CHAN HING CHUN 6th Respondent
HO WAN FUN 7th Respondent

__________________________

Coram: Deputy Judge Tracy Chan, Presiding Officer of the Lands Tribunal

Date of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie’s Application:
Date of Messrs. Chung & Kwan’s Application:
Date of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie’s Submission:
Date of Messrs. Chung & Kwan’s Submission:
Date of Decision:
15 September 2014
17 September 2014
29 September 2014

3 October 2014
14 October 2014

__________________________________

D E C I S I O N
[Variation of Costs Order Nisi]

____________________________________

1. The Substituting MC Members asked for variation of the costs order nisi made on 4 September 2014 on the 2 actions herein. The issuetaken is whether counsel certificate should be granted.

2. The Substituting MC Members asked that there be no certificate for counsel as it was not justified by the complexity or otherwisesimplicity of the issues. I could not agree. The main issue raised at the trial had not been determined by any other courts before. There were indeed not much factual disputes. Arguments were mainly on the interpretation of the DMC and Sub-DMCs and the interpretationand application of the BMO. These are legal arguments. I am of the view that it was not unreasonable to brief counsel to assist thecourt in dealing with these legal arguments.

3. Further, the fact that the solicitors acting for the Substituting MC Members had put in 21 pages for an opening and 38 pages fortheir closing submissions is good indication that the issues involved are not simple and straight forward.

4. The Substituting Members’ application for variation of the costs order nisi is therefore refused.

5. Costs of this application be to the Former MC Members, to be taxed at District Court Scale with no counsel certificate. This isorder nisi to become absolute if no application is made to vary the same within 14 days from date of this decision.

6. Whether costs shall be awarded to the 7th Applicant under LDBM 299/2012 shall be dealt with upon determination of the application made by it which is to be heard on 29 October2014.

Deputy Judge Tracy Chan
Presiding Officer
Lands Tribunal

LDBM 299/2012

Mr Paul Wu, instructed by Messrs. Chung & Kwan, for the 1st to 7th Applicants

Mr Anthony Poon, of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie, for the 1st to 3rd, and 5th to 6th Respondents

LDBM 108/2013

Mr Anthony Poon, of Messrs. Baker & McKenzie, for the Applicant

Mr Paul Wu, instructed by Messrs. Chung & Kwan, for the 1st to 4th, and 6th to 7th Respondents

The 5th Respondent, acting in person, absent