The government is facing a higher than usual legal bill because of the 'oppressive litigation' it used in a failed attempt to hold Hong Kong Stadium's former management firm liable for a defective pitch. Mr Justice William Stone yesterday stopped short of awarding Wembley International (HK) and its parent company, Wembley Plc, indemnity costs but instead granted the management firm costs on a common fund basis. No specific amount was disclosed but there are different levels by which costs are awarded. Indemnity costs is the most punitive punishment, involving the payment of the entire legal bill. Common fund is less severe, and costs on a party-to-party basis is the usual level that a court awards. In March, Mr Justice Stone absolved Wembley of any wrongdoing and instead criticised the government's tactics in mounting the breach of contract case. At the time, he said: 'This has not been attractive litigation. The case as mounted by the government sought to level every possible allegation which could be identified against the former manager of the stadium. 'The manner in which this case has been conducted strikes me as ill-considered at best and, at worst, little short of oppressive. 'A defendant with lesser resources may well have been forced to fold its tent and creep away.' He said the government had taken the unusual step of pursuing compensation and seeking a court declaration that termination of the contract was justified. Wembley signed a 10-year agreement to manage the $850 million stadium in March 1994 but the deal was terminated in May 1998. The government had sought unspecified damages for 'serious or persistent breach of its obligations' in alleging Wembley had mismanaged the stadium and its pitch. Instead, the judge allowed Wembley's counterclaim for wrongful termination of the management agreement by the then Urban Council. The management firm was awarded $21,855,702. Yesterday, Mr Justice Stone revisited the government's handling of the case in determining the costs order. He said Wembley had been put to considerable effort to meet an extensive variety of allegations thrown at them by the government. 'In my view this case cannot simply be dismissed as the normal rough and tumble of hostile litigation between two 'big boys' who 'know the score and can take care of themselves', which [was put forward by the government],' Mr Justice Stone said. 'The answer to this, it seems to me, is that if Wembley had not been the 'big boy' that it was, then in all probability, it would have been economically squashed by the level of resources required to mount a proper defence to the litany of complaints asserted by the [government].'' He said the resourceful were entitled to the same protection under law against unfairness as those who were obviously vulnerable. Mr Justice Stone added that 'the broad justice of this case' would be met if the government were to pay Wembley's costs and pain on a common fund basis.