LING WING FAI BILLY AND OTHERS v. LING SHUI FAI AND OTHERS

FACV No. 11 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2011 (CIVIL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO.99 OF 2008)

_____________________

Between :

LING WING FAI BILLY 1st Plaintiff
LAM WA 2nd Plaintiff
(Appellant)
LING WING FAI BILLY, the Administrator of the estate of WONG KING SHUI (or SUI), deceased 3rd Plaintiff
– and –
LING SHUI FAI 1st Defendant
CHU YUEN LUN GARMEN 2nd Defendant
(Respondent)
TAM KWOK CHIU 3rd Defendant
and
TAM KWOK CHIU Third Party

_____________________

Before : Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and Lord Hoffmann NPJ

Date of Judgment : 31 May 2013

__________________________

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

__________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1. On 13 November 2012, the Court allowed the two appeals dealt with together,[1] holding that the creation of equitable interests in a Home Ownership Scheme flat resulting from family and friends helping with thepurchase monies did not constitute a void “alienation” of the flat under section 17B of the Housing Ordinance (Cap 283). Written submissions as to costs have now been received from the parties in FACV 11/2011.

2. The appellant seeks the costs here and below as costs following the event. The respondent accepts that she should bear the costsat first instance and in the Court of Appeal but submits that 50% of the costs in this Court should be discounted because the appellantraised three issues on the appeal and succeeded only on the first two, the Court not finding it necessary to deal with the third(which the respondent describes as unnecessary or unarguable). The respondent draws attention to the number of pages in the writtencases and the number of authorities devoted to that third issue.

3. We do not consider the abovementioned complaint a sufficient ground for departing from the usual rule that costs should follow theevent. We therefore order that the respondent pay to the appellant the costs of the proceedings in this Court, including the costsof the leave application and of the present submissions; as well as the costs in the Courts below. The appellant has asked variouslyfor certificates for one and two counsel to be granted. It is unnecessary to ask for a certificate for two counsel in this Court,as explained in Hebei Enterprises Ltd v Livasiri & Co.[2]

(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(Patrick Chan)
Permanent Judge
(RAV Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

(Henry Litton)
Non-Permanent Judge
(Lord Hoffmann)
Non-Permanent Judge

Written submissions by Mr Denis Chang SC and Mr Earl Deng instructed by Rowdget W Young & Co for the Appellant

Written submissions by Ms Lisa KY Wong SC and Mr Keith Lam instructed by Chong, So & Co for the Respondent



[1] Listed as FACV 9 and 11 of 2011 respectively. Now reported as Cheuk Shu Yin v Yip So Wan [2013] 1 HKLRD 656.

[2] FACV 23/2007, 5 December 2008, cited in HKSAR v Egan (No 2) (2010) 13 HKCFAR 689 at §10.