GREENPEACE EAST ASIA v. 香港綠色和平大聯盟 AND OTHERS
HTML content
HCA 2038/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2038 OF 2014
________________________
BETWEEN | ||
| Greenpeace East Asia (綠色和平) | Plaintiff | |
and | ||
| 香港綠色和平大聯盟 | 1st Defendant | |
| 伍忠榮 | 2nd Defendant | |
| 劉龍仔 | 3rd Defendant | |
| 關光 | 4th Defendant | |
| PERSONS FORMING A GROUP OF DEMONSTRATORS/COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS USING THE NAME OF香港綠色和平大聯盟 TO TAKE PART IN ANY PROCESSION, ASSEMBLY OR DEMONSTRATION | 5th Defendant | |
________________________
Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 24 October 2014
Date of Decision: 24 October 2014
______________________________
DECISION ON COSTS
______________________________
1. Regrettably, there are yet again non-compliances by the professionals in respect of the applicable Practice Directions concerning the filing of the hearing bundles and skeleton argument (see PD 5.3, paras 7.1.3 and 7.3).
2. Mr Tam, who appears for the plaintiff, has very fairly accepted that there is no good explanation for either of the non-compliances.
3. I should make it clear that the infringements in question had hindered the preparation for this hearing by the court. In the premises, they cannot be overlooked : see Lau Yue Kui & Ors v Philip Chan & Co, HCMP 593/2007, § 37.
4. Pursuant to para 10 of PD 5.3, the court has the power to penalise the professionals from non-compliance.
5. Mr Tam, again fairly, does not quarrel with that.
6. On behalf of those instructed him, Mr Tam accepts that the costs of the hearing bundles should be borne by them by reason of the non-compliance with PD 5.3, para 7.1.3.
7. Further, Mr Tam accepts that 25% of his brief fee, namely, half of the estimated fee for preparation of his skeleton argument should be disallowed to reflect the non-compliance with PD 5.3, para 7.3.
8. In the premises, I make the costs order sought in para 2 of the Summons dated 22 October 2014 with the aforesaid modifications.
| (Anthony Chan) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
Mr Jeffrey Tam, instructed by Tang, Wong & Chow, for the plaintiff
The 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants were not represented and did not appear