We were delighted to join with Blackstone Chambers for a panel discussion on the constitutional protection of property rights in public and private law litigation.

Insights on this interesting and important topic were shared from the front lines of litigation in both Hong Kong (

) and London (Tom Weisselberg KC and Monica Carss-Frisk KC).

A big thank you to all who attended the event and contributed to the lively discussion.

Costs orders are commonly made in favour of or against multiple parties. When faced with such a costs order, questions may arise as to whether the relevant parties’ entitlement or liability for costs is joint and several. In 

 [2024] HKCFI 3552, the Court provided useful guidance on the interpretation of such costs orders.

The applicant and the respondent were siblings involved in multiple sets of proceedings between their family members. The respondent later presented a statutory demand against the applicant based on the costs orders made in those proceedings, including two costs orders which were made (i) against the applicant and other unsuccessful parties and (ii) in favour of the respondent and other successful parties.

The applicant sought to set aside the statutory demand on the following grounds: 

Her liability under the costs orders is not joint and several, and she should not be liable for the full amount of the costs awarded under the relevant costs orders (1

The respondent is only entitled only to claim the costs which he had personally incurred in the proceedings, but not the costs incurred by the other successful parties (2

Winnie Tsui J dismissed the setting aside application. 

Where a costs order is made against more than one paying party, the general starting point is that the liability is joint and several, except in respect of the separate case or cause raised by one of the losing parties, in which case, the losing party alone is solely liable for the costs incurred by the winning party in meeting the separate case or cause.

The starting point is not to be elevated to the status of a hard and fast principle. Rather, it reflects a more general principle of costs, namely, it being at the discretion of the Court taking into consideration all circumstances, including who is the winner and the parties’ conduct.

On the facts, the proceedings in question were in substance between two rival camps of family members, and the applicant was in one of the two camps. She had taken up the same position and run the same case as others in her camp and is liable for the costs of the successful camp.  

 ground, the judge held that, where more than one person jointly instruct a solicitor in the same case, then as between them and the solicitor, they are jointly and severally liable for his costs, absent any evidence to the contrary. It is for the applicant to adduce such evidence in the present case, but she has not done so. 

 appeared for the Applicant, instructed by Kenneth Poon & Co. 

成員

加入天博

最新消息

Guidance on Interpretation of Multi-Party Costs Orders

最新判案書

最新活動

Cash, Cars and Chickens: Constitutional Property Rights

PRACTICE AREAS

關於天博

成員

加入天博

最新動向