Kun Peng I Ltd and Another v. Win Power Investment Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 475/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 March 2016.

1. Arising out of an appeal against a Master’s decision granting the third party’s application for security for costs against the 2 nd defendant, numerous issues on costs have arisen. The only thing that the parties have been able to agree upon is that this costs decision should be dealt with “on paper”, without a hearing.

Cited by 2 cases

Case No.HCA 475/2012
Court
High Court CFI
Date24 Mar 2016
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 475/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 475 of 2012

__________________

BETWEEN    
  KUN PENG I LIMITED 1st Plaintiff
  KUN PENG II LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and  
  WIN POWER INVESTMENT LIMITED
(金力投資有限公司)
1st Defendant
  LIN MING (林明) 2nd Defendant
  JOINTA LIMITED (駿鼎有限公司) 3rd Defendant
FUJIAN YUANSHENG FOODS INDUSTRY CO., LTD
(福建元盛食品工業有限公司)
4th Defendant
  and  
  FABULOUS TURBO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Third Party

__________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Burrell in Chambers
Dates of Written Submissions: 26 February, 3, 11, 16 and 17 March 2016
Date of Decision on Costs: 24 March 2016

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS
____________________

1.Arising out of an appeal against a Master’s decision granting the third party’s application for security for costs against the 2nd defendant, numerous issues on costs have arisen. The only thing that the parties have been able to agree upon is that this costs decision should be dealt with “on paper”, without a hearing.

2.Pursuant to directions, both sides submitted a short written submission.  I have read and considered (i) the written submissions, (ii) both parties’ statements of costs for summary assessments, (iii) objections to the statements of costs, (iv) all the correspondence relating to costs issues with enclosures and (v) the Master’s written decision against which the appeal was launched.

3.I am now asked to make four orders, namely:

(a) costs of an adjournment of the appeal when it was listed for 15 minutes in the 9:30am list on 13 November 2015;

(b) costs of the 2nd defendant’s unsuccessful appeal against the Master’s order;

(c) costs of this “Decision on Costs”; and

(d) an order for payment out of $103,000 being the sum summarily awarded to the third party following the hearing before the Master, out of the $210,000 being the sum paid into court as security for costs, by the 2nd defendant.

4.Confusingly, in the third party’s statement of costs for the adjournment and the appeal, it seeks costs of $84,080 (for the adjournment) and $54,229 (for the appeal). Whereas, in the third party’s written submission, the claim for $84,080 is for the appeal and $54,229 is for the adjournment.  I shall treat the higher sum as the claim for the appeal, not the adjournment.  In a sense it does not matter because the combined sum for both appearances is the same.

5.I make the following orders:

(1) costs of the adjournment on 13 November 2015 to the third party summarily assessed at $40,000;

(2) costs of the appeal before this court on 12 January 2016 to the third party summarily assessed at $70,000;

(3) costs of this “Decision on Costs” resolved “on paper” to the third party summarily assessed at $25,000; and

(4) an order for payment out of $103,000 being the sum awarded by the Master as the 2nd defendant’s liability for costs payable to the third party from the $210,000 sum paid into court by the 2nd defendant as security, forthwith with no order as to costs.

(M P Burrell)
Deputy High Court Judge

Mr Kelvin Leung, instructed by M C A Lai & Co, for the 2nd defendant

Mr Toby Brown, instructed by Stephenson Harwood, for the third party