CACV214/2016 IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER - LawHero
CACV214/2016
上訴法庭（民事）Cheung, Kwan and Poon JJA22/3/2017
CACV214/2016
由此
A
A
B CACV 214/2016 B
C C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E COURT OF APPEAL E
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2016
F F
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 450 OF 2016)
G G
H H
BETWEEN
I I
IP PUI LAM ARTHUR Plaintiffs
J J
IP PUI SUM
(JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES K
K
IN BANKRUPTCY)
L L
M
AND M
N N
ALAN CHUNG WAH T ANG AND Defendants
O
ALISON WONG LEE FUNG YING O
P P
Q Q
Before: Hon Cheung, Kwan and Poon JJA in Court R
R
Date of Written Submission by the Plaintiffs: 23 March 2017 S
S
Dates of Written Submission by the Defendants: 13 and 31 March 2017
T T
Date of Decision on Costs: 24 April 2017
U U
V V
由此
- 2 - A
A
B
B
C
C
DECISION ON COSTS
D
D
E
E
Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) :
F
F
1. This Court made an order nisi that the defendants are
G
G to pay the plaintiffs 80% of the costs of the appeal and below
to be taxed on an indemnity basis. The defendants see k to H
H
vary the order so that they will only need to pay 20% of the
I
I costs of the appeal and below.
J
J
2. The defendants’ argument is that in the Court
K
K below, the plaintiffs’ case was that the defendants had
committed five breaches of the March 2015 order and To J L
L
found the defendants had committed four breaches of the
M
M order. On appeal, this Court found that the defendants had
only committed one breach. The defendants contended that N
N
the five allegations of breach constituted five separate charges
O
O and hence constituting five events. Applying the principle
that costs following the event, they should not be ordered to pay P
P
80% of the plaintiffs’ costs. Even if the various breaches are
Q
Q considered merely as issues, they should still not be ordered to
pay 80% of the plaintiffs’ costs. R
R
3. We disagree. The issue is whether the defendants S
S
were in contempt of court. The Judge found they were and on
T
T
appeal by the defendants we uphold this view although not on
U
U
V
V
由此
- 3 - A
A
B
B
the entire basis as decided by the Judge. The only reason why
we gave the plaintiffs 80% of their costs and not the whole is C
C
because we found the co mmittal order is no longer appropriate. D
D
E
4. The 80% costs order of the costs below for the E
plaintiffs is the appropriate order having considered all the
F
F
circumstances of the case. The only matter that needs to be
G
changed is that in the appeal, the plaintiffs’ application to G
adduce new evidence was not successful and their argument in
H
H
the amended respondent’s notice was not required to be
I decided. To reflect this, the costs order for the appeal should I
be revised so that the defendants will bear 70% of the costs of
J
J
the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis. It was our intention to
grant certificate for two counsel and we will so order. K
K
L
L
M
M
(Peter Cheung) (Susan Kwan) (Jeremy Poon) N
N
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
O
O
P
P
Q Mr David Chen, instructed by Li, Wong, Lam & W.I. Cheung, Q
for the plaintiffs
R
R
Mr Patrick Siu, instructed by ONC Lawyers, for the defendants S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V
IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. ALAN CHUNG WAH TANG AND ANOTHER
由此
A
A
B CACV 214/2016 B
C C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E COURT OF APPEAL E
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2016
F F
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 450 OF 2016)
G G
H H
BETWEEN
I I
IP PUI LAM ARTHUR Plaintiffs
J J
IP PUI SUM
(JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES K
K
IN BANKRUPTCY)
L L
M
AND M
N N
ALAN CHUNG WAH T ANG AND Defendants
O
ALISON WONG LEE FUNG YING O
P P
Q Q
Before: Hon Cheung, Kwan and Poon JJA in Court R
R
Date of Written Submission by the Plaintiffs: 23 March 2017 S
S
Dates of Written Submission by the Defendants: 13 and 31 March 2017
T T
Date of Decision on Costs: 24 April 2017
U U
V V
由此
- 2 - A
A
B
B
C
C
DECISION ON COSTS
D
D
E
E
Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) :
F
F
1. This Court made an order nisi that the defendants are
G
G to pay the plaintiffs 80% of the costs of the appeal and below
to be taxed on an indemnity basis. The defendants see k to H
H
vary the order so that they will only need to pay 20% of the
I
I costs of the appeal and below.
J
J
2. The defendants’ argument is that in the Court
K
K below, the plaintiffs’ case was that the defendants had
committed five breaches of the March 2015 order and To J L
L
found the defendants had committed four breaches of the
M
M order. On appeal, this Court found that the defendants had
only committed one breach. The defendants contended that N
N
the five allegations of breach constituted five separate charges
O
O and hence constituting five events. Applying the principle
that costs following the event, they should not be ordered to pay P
P
80% of the plaintiffs’ costs. Even if the various breaches are
Q
Q considered merely as issues, they should still not be ordered to
pay 80% of the plaintiffs’ costs. R
R
3. We disagree. The issue is whether the defendants S
S
were in contempt of court. The Judge found they were and on
T
T
appeal by the defendants we uphold this view although not on
U
U
V
V
由此
- 3 - A
A
B
B
the entire basis as decided by the Judge. The only reason why
we gave the plaintiffs 80% of their costs and not the whole is C
C
because we found the co mmittal order is no longer appropriate. D
D
E
4. The 80% costs order of the costs below for the E
plaintiffs is the appropriate order having considered all the
F
F
circumstances of the case. The only matter that needs to be
G
changed is that in the appeal, the plaintiffs’ application to G
adduce new evidence was not successful and their argument in
H
H
the amended respondent’s notice was not required to be
I decided. To reflect this, the costs order for the appeal should I
be revised so that the defendants will bear 70% of the costs of
J
J
the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis. It was our intention to
grant certificate for two counsel and we will so order. K
K
L
L
M
M
(Peter Cheung) (Susan Kwan) (Jeremy Poon) N
N
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
O
O
P
P
Q Mr David Chen, instructed by Li, Wong, Lam & W.I. Cheung, Q
for the plaintiffs
R
R
Mr Patrick Siu, instructed by ONC Lawyers, for the defendants S
S
T
T
U
U
V
V