Zimmerman, Paulus Johannes 司馬文
Designing Hong Kong Ltd v Town Planning Board
HK Court of Appeal, 16-Feb-2017
DHK loses its appeal against the refusal of the court below to grant a protective costs order for its judicial review of the TPB's decision in relation to the military dock in Central. The only consolation is that the Court of Appeal did not award costs of the appeal against the applicant, unlike the court below.
HK Court of Appeal, 16-Feb-2017
DHK loses its appeal against the refusal of the court below to grant a protective costs order for its judicial review of the TPB's decision in relation to the military dock in Central. The only consolation is that the Court of Appeal did not award costs of the appeal against the applicant, unlike the court below.
Designing Hong Kong Ltd v Town Planning Board
HK Court of First Instance, 31-Jul-2015
Costs of the failed application for a Protective Costs Order are awarded to the defendant.
HK Court of First Instance, 31-Jul-2015
Costs of the failed application for a Protective Costs Order are awarded to the defendant.
Designing Hong Kong Ltd v Town Planning Board
HK Court of First Instance, 28-Jul-2015
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
HK Court of First Instance, 28-Jul-2015
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
Designing Hong Kong Ltd v Town Planning Board
HK Court of First Instance, 30-Apr-2015
Justice Thomas Au rules that the court must look beyond the resources of a limited company to its directors and shareholders (or in this case, members, as the company is limited by guarantee and not-for-profit). As the directors have not demonstrated that they could not fund the company's action, the application for a protective costs order (limiting their contingent liability for the respondent's costs) is refused. So even if a case is in the public interest and the applicant's directors have no personal gain, if affluent directors are bringing it, then they must fund it (if it is required to post security for costs) and cannot hide behind a limited company.
HK Court of First Instance, 30-Apr-2015
Justice Thomas Au rules that the court must look beyond the resources of a limited company to its directors and shareholders (or in this case, members, as the company is limited by guarantee and not-for-profit). As the directors have not demonstrated that they could not fund the company's action, the application for a protective costs order (limiting their contingent liability for the respondent's costs) is refused. So even if a case is in the public interest and the applicant's directors have no personal gain, if affluent directors are bringing it, then they must fund it (if it is required to post security for costs) and cannot hide behind a limited company.
Webb on "Backchat" re West Kowloon single-developer approach being dropped, and the budget
RTHK, 22-Feb-2006
RTHK, 22-Feb-2006
Sign up for our free newsletter
Recommend Webb-site to a friend
Copyright & disclaimer, Privacy policy