IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 936 OF 2005
Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 11 January 2008
Date of Decision : 11 January 2008
D E C I S I O N
1. Having heard the submissions and considered the factors that have been drawn to my attention that I have to take into account asset out at marginal note 62/App/48 I am satisfied that it was necessary and proper to engage two counsel for the preparation andtrial of this case.
2. Although the legal principles were not in dispute at the trial, the defendant could not be confident prior to trial that the principleswould be accepted by the plaintiff. It was only after extensive research had been done in different jurisdictions that the matterwas presented on the authorities, and at trial the legal principles were not disputed.
3. The quantum was agreed at trial but Mr Leung is right to draw my attention to the fact that on the plaintiff’s pleaded case itwas a substantial claim for damages.
4. The legal principles and the importance of the case to the defendant cannot be underestimated since it is a franchised public buscompany. Although at trial many of the issues had been narrowed, this does not detract from the fact that it was necessary and proper,in my view, to instruct two counsel to appear at the trial and to be involved in the preparation for the trial.
5. In the circumstances I would vary the costs order nisi by certifying that the case is fit for two counsel. I so order.
Mr John Clancey of M/s Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners for the Plaintiff
Mr Raymond Leung instructed by M/s Hastings & Co. for the Defendant