HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Civil Action2003

CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV14/2021YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN
  • CACV15/2021YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN
  • CACV28/1997HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
  • FACV5/2002NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER v. MA CHING FAT
  • HCA1243/2017YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN
  • HCA1584/2012YU MAN FUNG ALICE v. CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN
  • HCA1634/2012HUANG JINLING v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
  • HCA2776/2006DR ESTHETIC PRODUCT RESEARCH & PRODUCTION CENTRE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
  • HCA3238/1995HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
  • HCA563/2010CHRISTIAN ZHENG SHENG ASSOCIATION LTD AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
  • HCA785/2011CHUNG MING YU AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
63110-EN-2008-10-31

CHIAU SING CHI STEPHEN v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

HTML content

HCA 3113/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 3113 OF 2003

----------------------

BETWEEN  
 CHIAU SING CHI STEPHENPlaintiff
 and 
 NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED1st Defendant
 CHO SIU CHUN2nd Defendant

----------------------

Before:  Hon Chung J in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions:  15 October 2008

Date of Handing Down Decision on Costs:  31 October 2008

 

---------------------------------

DECISION ON COSTS

--------------------------------

 

Introduction

1.  This is the decision on the costs of the plaintiff’s application for leave to make a statement in open court.

2.  The parties sensibly agree that, save as regards the costs of the hearing on 14 August 2008, the plaintiff is to have the costs of the application: Phillipps v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. and Another [2004] 1 WLR 2106.  As regards the costs of the said hearing, the plaintiff argues that there should be no order as to costs whereas the defendants seek those costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

3.  The application for leave was unopposed; but dispute arose as regards the terms of the draft statement.  The hearing on 14 August 2008 was the opportunity at which they put forth their respective arguments.  Written decision which determined the dispute was handed down on 21 August 2008.

4.  As was stated in the decision of 21 August 2008, the scope of dispute was narrowed down to para. 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the draft statement by 14 August: see para. 10 thereof.  The written decision decided against the plaintiff in relation to para. 4, 5 and 7.  Leave was given in relation to a version of para. 9 of the draft which was not originally contended for by the plaintiff.  The defendants did not oppose the version of para. 9 for which leave was in fact given.

5.  In view of the above, I agree with the defendants’ submissions that they were in effect the successful party.

6.  There is no valid reason to depart from the general rule that cost should follow the event: Phillipps, para. 11.  Accordingly:-

(a) costs of the hearing on 14 August 2008 be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants;

(b)    subject to (a) above, costs of the application for leave be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.

 

 

 (Andrew Chung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

All costs are to be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Jason Pow, SC, instructed by Messrs Cheng Wong Lam & Partners, for the Plaintiff

Mr Anderson Chow, SC, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the Defendants