HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Civil Action2002

JAW SIU WAH t/a WILLIAM TRADING CO v. KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV326/2003JAW SIU WAH t/a WILLIAM TRADING CO v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • DCEC412/1997LAM KIN MAN v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • DCPI1535/2009YAM BIK KWAN v. KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • DCPI501/2005LAU CHI MAN v. KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • HCA2222/2006KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION v. CHEUNG YIN TUNG AND OTHERS
  • HCA385/2013KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION v. HA CHIU YEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • HCA4338/1984LAI HING WAN v. KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • HCCT38/1994MARSHALL-KARSON CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS LTD. v. KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • HCLA14/1984LAM SIK CHEUNG v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION
  • HCMA1089/2005KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION v. NGAI FOOK LAM

Files (2)

34654-EN-2003-08-19

JAW SIU WAH t/a WILLIAM TRADING CO v. KOWLOON CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION

HTML content

DCCJ003054A/2002

DCCJ3054/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3054 OF 2002

__________________

BETWEEN
Jaw Siu-wah
trading as William Trading Company
Plaintiff
AND
Kowloon-Canton Railway CorporationDefendant

__________________

Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Court

Date of Ruling: 19 August 2003

_________________

R U L I N G

_________________

1. Mr Yip, in a series of brave submissions, has sought to persuade me that I ought to depart from the usual order on costs which appears in Order 62 of the Rules of the District Court, and what he suggests are that two of the three exceptions which would, or might, at least, persuade a judge to take another course, are present: firstly, that the defendant has brought about the litigation or has done some wrongful act in the course of the transaction of which the plaintiff complains.

2. I have listened to those submissions with great interest, but at the end of the day, what he is inviting me to do is to, in effect, reverse the whole thrust of my judgment; and clearly that is not a course that appeals to me at all.

3. This is a case where the plaintiff has taken his chance and he has, in my view, very clearly failed. So far as the counterclaim is concerned, it was always open to the plaintiff to protect himself with a payment into court; he has not done so.

4. In such circumstances, I feel constrained to confirm my order for costs with, I think, the inevitable consequence that the costs of today should also go to the defendant, although I will hear Mr Yip on that. No; very well, thank you.

Ian Carlson
District Court Judge

Representation:

Mr Simon Yip, instructed by Messrs George Tung, Jimmy Ng & Valent Tse, for the Plaintiff

Ms Winnie Tam, of Messrs Simmons & Simmons, for the Defendant

25781-EN-2003-07-03

JIU WAH t/a WILLIAM TRADING CO v. KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION

HTML content