HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Civil Action2014

GREENPEACE EAST ASIA v. 香港綠色和平大聯盟 AND OTHERS

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV109/2021TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS
  • CACV111/2012A v. 接替黄偉綸在職業訓練局常務委員會當委員的教育局副秘書長 AND OTHERS
  • CACV178/2015TSANG FOO KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. AND OTHERS
  • CAMP20/2024李明實 AND OTHERS v. ACE LEAD PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER
  • CAMP293/2022YIP LAI HEUNG v. 伍炳榮 AND OTHERS
  • CAMP63/2024CHEUNG SAU CHU ROSANNA v. 魯珉軒 AND OTHERS
  • CAMP70/2018MAN KAI TAK v. 梁妹 AND OTHERS
  • DCCJ3030/2023H.K.F.S. FUND LTD v. 羅芷澄 AND OTHERS
  • DCCJ324/2025庄跃进AND OTHERS v. 白平
  • DCEC1011/2000TAM YUEN HOI v. 陳牧成 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1141/2018TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1252/2016YIP LAI HEUNG v. 伍炳榮 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1764/2018XIE JINFENG v. 勝哥火鍋食品專門店 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1786/2019譚國武 v. 三星電子香港有限公司 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC2444/2019CHEN LIANGPING v. 方廷秋 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC516/2016CHENG KA PIU v. 黃明光 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC535/2017LAM HO LUN v. 吳耀文 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC713/2009TSANG CHIU TUNG v. 陳創成經營成記水喉渠務工程 AND ANOTHER
  • DCEC738/2010YIP CHI HO v. 黃啓德 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC926/2002YU YIN SUN v. 李良 AND OTHERS
95612-EN-2014-10-24

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 DEMONSTRATION5th 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