GOLDEN HARVEST (HK) LTD. v. TSUI MAN KWONG AND ANOTHER

HCA016220A/1998

HCA 16220/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 16220 OF 1998

____________

BETWEEN
GOLDEN HARVEST (HK) LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
TSUI MAN KWONG also known as Tsui Hark 1st Defendant
FILM WORKSHOP COMPANY LIMITED 2nd Defendant

____________

Coram: Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 January 2000

Date of Ruling: 12 January 2000

__________________

RULING ON COSTS

__________________

1. I have considered the various submissions made to me. It seems to me that an offer was made to dispose of the appeal by the Defendants’solicitors’ letter of 8 January 2000. That gave the Plaintiff’s solicitors time to respond by noon on 10 January 2000. It seems tome that that offer should have been accepted and the appeal would have been unnecessary. However, that was not accepted and the appealwas argued and disposed of yesterday.

2. It seems to me that the order for costs that I should make is that the costs of and occasioned by the amendment to the Notice ofAppeal be to the Defendants in any event. There were no extra costs incurred in the application for extension of time to issue thenotice of appeal and I make no special order as regards those costs. Costs of the appeal before noon on 10 January 2000 should beborne by the Defendants and the costs of the appeal after noon on 10 January 2000 should be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. I do not think the arguments in the appeal were such as to be necessary to instruct counsel and I do not certify the appeal hearingas fit for counsel.

4. As for the security for the costs of the appeal in the hearing before me on 6 January 2000, for the avoidance of doubt, I would saythat the Plaintiff is entitled to those costs. All the orders for costs are to be in any event.

(Arjan H Sakhrani)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Miss Yoanne Lai, of Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the Plaintiff

Mr Lawrence Ng, instructed by Messrs Fok & Johnson, for the Defendant