This case relates to a summons issued by Hawkins Development Limited (the “Company“), purportedly under O. 62 r. 9A (Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A – Sub. Leg.)), for an order that the amount paid into court by the petitioner as security for costs be paid out to the Company in part satisfaction of the costs payable by the petitioner following the dismissal of a winding up petition.

The petitioner argued that the court had no jurisdiction to make an interim payment of costs in proceedings that were not interlocutory application. The petitioner contended that the inherent jurisdiction of the court was confined to making good procedural lacunae.

The Honourable Madam Justice Kwan disagreed. She examined the new O. 62 r. 9A and O. 62 r. 21 under the Civil Justice Reform, and held that a procedural lacuna existed – “the power to make provisional summary assessments under rule 9A applies only to interlocutory applications, and there is no power under rules 21 to 21C to make an interim payment of costs which in the opinion of the court approximates the costs that would be allowed on taxation at the provisional taxation or a taxation hearing”. The Honourable Madam Justice Kwan exercised her inherent jurisdiction and ordered an interim payment of costs to the Company.

CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell CJR Alerter, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2009] 19 CJRA.