IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 2196 OF 2000
Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Longley in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 7 September 2001
Date of Ruling: 20 September 2001
RULING AS TO COSTS
1. The most significant relief sought by the Plaintiff in this action was an injunction restraining the Defendant from utilising vehicleson the access ramp of gross maximum weight exceeding 5.5 tonnes.
2. The court essentially was asked to consider whether the use of vehicles of greater maximum weight would affect the stability of theaccess ramp and the caisson and retaining wall which supported it. This matter and the factual issues it raised occupied the greatmajority of the trial and were decided in favour of the Defendant.
3. The Plaintiff was, however, successful in obtaining other heads of relief claimed. These were either admitted or occupied a relativelysmall portion of the trial.
4. I have borne in mind the general principle that costs should follow the event except where in a discretion of the court, some otherorders should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs.
5. I am satisfied that the justice of the case will be best served by an order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s taxed costs ofthe action, save to the limited extent that the Plaintiff was successful.
6. I accordingly order that the Defendant’s costs be taxed if not agreed and paid by the Plaintiff, save as follows:
7. The basis of the latter order was not the grounds for such relief pleaded in the Statement of Claim; namely that the continued useof vehicles with gross maximum weight in excess of 5.5 tonnes by the Defendant on the access ramp would cause and/or had caused long-termdamage to the caisson wall and L-shaped wall (and by implication the rock anchors) thereby affecting the structural stability ofthe access ramp (which the court did not find proved). The basis for that order was evidence adduced at the trial that rock anchorsshould not be regarded as permanent works by reasons of the possibility of limited longevity. The costs recoverable by the Plaintiffunder this head are limited to those arising from the evidence as to the limited longevity of rock anchors.
8. The costs of today are to be borne by the parties in the proportion that the Plaintiff’s taxed costs payable by the Defendant, bearto the Defendant’s taxed costs payable by the Plaintiff.
Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, instructed by Messrs Paul K C Chan & Co., for the Plaintiff
Mr Kenneth Chan, instructed by Messrs Siao, Wen & Leung, for the Defendant