Lau Tim Fat And Others v Li Bang Yuen And Others

Judgment Date16 May 2007
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberCACV335/2006
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CACV000335A/2006 LAU TIM FAT AND OTHERS v. LI BANG YUEN AND OTHERS

CACV 335/2006 AND CACV 422/2006

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no S. 335 of 2006 AND 422 OF 2006

(on appeal from HCMP NO. 1117 of 2004)

______________________

  IN THE MATTER of Order 113 of the Rules of the High Court and other matters
  and
  IN THE MATTER of the parcel of ground registered in the Tsuen Wan New Territories Land Registry as Lot 19-28 D.D.455

______________________

BETWEEN

  LAU TIM FAT 1st Plaintiff
  LAU TIM YAU 2nd Plaintiff
  LAU TIM CHOI 3rd Plaintiff
  LAU MAN KIT 4th Plaintiff
  LAU TAK HUNG 5th Plaintiff
  LAU HON KEUNG 6th Plaintiff
LAU WING MAN 7th Plaintiff
LAU WING CHUNG, PAUL 8th Plaintiff
LAU SHU WAN 9th Plaintiff
LAU SHUE TAN 10th Plaintiff
LAU FUK PING 11th Plaintiff
LAU FUK SHEUNG, MONDY 12th Plaintiff
LAU FUK SANG 13th Plaintiff
LAU FUK HONG 14th Plaintiff
and
LI BANG YUEN 1st Defendant
LI BANG YU 2nd Defendant
(whose names are known)
LAM KWOK WAI 3rd Defendant
and
CHU PAK HEI Applicant

Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions on Costs: 19 March 2007

Date of Handing Down Ruling on Costs: 16 May 2007

_________________________

RULING ON COSTS

_________________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1. Following this Court’s judgment given in respect CACV 335 of 2006 and CACV 422 of 2006 a question has arisen as to how the costs in the latter appeal should fall.

2. The issue in the main appeal CACV 335 of 2006 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and that appeal was dismissed. However, the appeal in CACV 422 of 2006 was in respect of an order for a stay pending the main appeal. This court held that it would not have been disposed to allow the appeal in CACV 422 of 2006 because Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie had every justification for granting the stay pending appeal. The stay, of course, fell away once the main appeal had been disposed of. In reality, therefore, the appeal in CACV 422 of 2006 failed, albeit by the time it came to be decided events had naturally, and as would have been foreseen, overtaken the necessity for any decision.

3. In those...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT