IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 1662 OF 2001
Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 11 April 2008
Date of Ruling: 11 April 2008
R U L I N G
1. I am going to decline a stay of execution, simply because I do not consider that this appeal would be nugatory. The fact is thatthe defendant and her family have rather lost interest in this land, save, of course, for the very real interest which lies in itsmonetary value and if the defendant were to succeed on appeal, then I have absolutely no doubt that she would be properly compensatedfor having succeeded in the appeal by the plaintiffs, if, in fact, they had by then been fortunate enough to secure a sale of theland before the appeal was resolved. This is not a case of an appeal being nugatory and that is why I am going to refuse a stay.
2. So far as the apportionment of the costs is concerned – I think Mr Shaw is right – one can only apply a very broad appreciationto this. My sense of it is that more of the time and the preparation would have been given to the defence of the counterclaim andso 60/40, 60 per cent in relation to the counterclaim and 40 per cent in relation to the claim, would be broadly correct.
3. Then so far as the directions as to mesne profits, for that hearing I think two days is appropriate. I would not have thought itwill cause a particularly longer delay in coming on. I think it is better to play safe. This case has already suffered from inadequatetime estimates and I would not like to go off on, as it were, a losing note by also getting this estimate wrong. I think two daysis right.
Geoffrey Shaw, of Messrs Deacons, for the Plaintiff
Patrick Szeto, instructed by Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, for the Defendant