Re Hin-pro International Logistics Ltd

HCCW 226/2014

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO 226 OF 2014

____________

____________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS
____________________

1.By a Judgment handed down on 28 January 2016, this court allowed the Petitioner’s application for leave to re-amend its winding up petition. At paragraph 36 of the Judgment, this court ordered that “In the absence of agreement within 14 days, the parties are to file and exchange their written submissions on costs, which shall be dealt with by this court on paper”.

2.This court has since received written submissions from the parties on costs.

3.Having considered carefully the submissions, this court is of the view that there is no sufficient reason to depart from the usual order as to costs in an unsuccessfully resisted application for leave to amend, as set out in Lessy SARL v Pacific Star Development Ltd. [1996] 2 HKC 326.

4.In other words, there should be two sets of costs in relation to the present application:

(1) costs of and occasioned by the amendment be to the Respondent Company; and

(2) costs of the hearing of the application be to the Petitioner;

in any event, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel.

5.This court hereby orders accordingly.

6.Notwithstanding the Petitioner’s request, this court declines to summarily assess costs, given that it has ordered two sets of costs relating to the application and the question of set off is likely to arise.

Written submissions received from Stephenson Harwood for the Petitioner on 24 February 2016

Written submissions received from Mr George Chu instructed by Damien Shea & Co for the Respondent Company on 24 February 2016