Wong v McConville & Ors (No. 2)

In Wong v McConville & Ors (No. 2), the plaintiff sought to modify a restrictive covenant affecting his property. The defendants opposed the application, leading to a detailed examination of the legal principles surrounding costs in such applications. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants acted unreasonably in rejecting two Calderbank offers made by the plaintiff and assessing the impact of the abandonment of a significant ground of the application on the first day of the trial on the costs order.

The court considered whether the first Calderbank offer was too early and not susceptible to formulation as a modification to the covenant. It found that the offer did not meet the criteria for being a genuine proposal, and thus, the defendants were not unreasonable in rejecting it. Regarding the second offer, the court concluded that it was not susceptible to formulation as a modification to the covenant and was essentially an invitation to negotiate rather than a concrete proposal. The court also examined whether the need for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 84 of the Property Law Act 1958 affected the availability or utility of the Calderbank offers, finding that it did not.

Furthermore, the court noted that the abandonment of a significant ground of the application on the first day of the trial had implications for the costs order. Given these considerations, the court granted the application for modification of the restrictive covenant and ordered the defendants' costs to be paid by the plaintiff on the standard basis. The court's decision highlighted the importance of timely and concrete Calderbank offers in such cases and the impact of procedural developments on costs orders.