0
Armsys Posted 17 years ago
Vocabulary
Order the costs be to the Defendant
After reading a judge's decision, I find it difficult to understand the judge order:
In the premises, I further order that costs of this application be to the Defendant, grossly assessed at HK$52,900.00.
In this case, the judge dismissed the application. Who is awarded the legal costs? Who is supposed to pay for the legal costs? This is the typical legal language used in Hong Kong, very different from the United States.
Armstrong
In the premises, I further order that costs of this application be to the Defendant, grossly assessed at HK$52,900.00.
In this case, the judge dismissed the application. Who is awarded the legal costs? Who is supposed to pay for the legal costs? This is the typical legal language used in Hong Kong, very different from the United States.
Armstrong
Top answer
Hi Armsys, Legal language has its own jargon, and when you add the layer of complexity of a legal system in another country,it will be hard. It seems that who would have to pay for the legal costs was also a matter of dispute. The judge finds that the defendent should NOT have to pay them (so presumably the plaintiff must).
- Hi Armsys, Legal language has its own jargon, and when you add the layer of complexity of a legal system in another country,it will be hard.
- It seems that who would have to pay for the legal costs was also a matter of dispute.
- The judge finds that the defendent should NOT have to pay them (so presumably the plaintiff must).
- This makes sense if the suit was dismissed.
- I'd say "to the Defendant" means in favor of the defendant.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
Hi Armsys,
Legal language has its own jargon, and when you add the layer of complexity of a legal system in another country,it will be hard.
It seems that who would have to pay for the legal costs was also a matter of dispute. The judge finds that the defendent should NOT have to pay them (so presumably the plaintiff must). This makes sense if the suit was dismissed. I'd say "to
Legal language has its own jargon, and when you add the layer of complexity of a legal system in another country,it will be hard.
It seems that who would have to pay for the legal costs was also a matter of dispute. The judge finds that the defendent should NOT have to pay them (so presumably the plaintiff must). This makes sense if the suit was dismissed. I'd say "to
00
Hi Grammar Geek,
Without your explanation, the sentence could have been interpreted that the Defendant be ordered to pay for the legal costs in light of "be to defendant."
Thanks a lot.
Armstrong
Without your explanation, the sentence could have been interpreted that the Defendant be ordered to pay for the legal costs in light of "be to defendant."
Thanks a lot.
Armstrong
0
Related Questions