Yuen Man Chun As Representative on behalf of Himself and All Members of Ching Wai Boxing v. Hong Kong Boxing Association Ltd

Case No.HCMP 962/2016

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Feb 2017

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP 962/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 962 OF 2016

____________________

	IN THE MATTER OF sections 116(2) &(3), 578(2)&(3) of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) and Order 102 rule 2(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A)
	and
	IN THE MATTER OF Articles 11(a) &(b) of the Articles of Association of the Hong Kong Boxing Association Limited
	and
	IN THE MATTER OF the Hong Kong Boxing Association Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong (“the Company”)

____________________

BETWEEN
	YUEN MAN CHUN as representative on behalf of himself and all members of CHING WAI BOXING	Plaintiff
	and
	HONG KONG BOXING ASSOCIATION LIMITED	1st Defendant
	YIP KWOK CHEUNG	2nd Defendant
	LAU WAI LUN RONALD	3rd Defendant
	YEUNG HO	4th Defendant

____________________

Before: Hon Harris J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 17 February 2017

Date of Decision on Costs: 17 February 2017

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.I have an inter-parte summons dated 13 January 2017 before me seeking leave to amend the originating summons. The issue that I deal with in this short decision, there being no controversy that the amendment should be allowed, is how costs should be dealt with in respect of the application to discontinue the proceedings against the 2^nd to 4^th defendants.

2.There is no dispute that the costs of the 2^nd to 4^th defendants should be borne by the plaintiff. However, Mr D’Souza who appeared for the defendants sought an order that those costs be paid on an indemnity basis. He has done so on the grounds that as the allegations that were made against the 2^nd to 4^th defendants were of fraud, then in accordance with the practice recognised by Mr Justice David Richards (as he then was) in Clutterbuck and Paton v HSBC plc[1] then on the discontinuance of the claim, it is appropriate that costs are ordered on an indemnity basis.

3.Richards J says this at [20]:

“I therefore consider that allegations of fraud will in general justify the court in ordering costs upon an indemnity basis where the claimant serves notice of discontinuance. In a case to which I drew the attention of counsel, Jarvis plc v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2000] 2 ECLC 368, Lightman J took the same view.”

4.It seems to me that although no authority in Hong Kong deals with this specific point (although the Court of Final Appeal have dealt comprehensively with the circumstances in which it is appropriate to order indemnity costs[2]), the approach described by Richards J is generally appropriate and should be adopted in Hong Kong.

5.I will therefore make an order that the 2^nd to 4^th defendants’ costs are paid on an indemnity basis.

	(Jonathan Harris) Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

Mr Andrew Bullett, instructed by Lawrence KY Lo & Co, for the plaintiff

Mr Robin D’Souza & Ms Candy Chan, instructed by Tam, Pun & Yipp, for the 1^st to 4^th defendants

[1] [2015] EWHC 3233 (Ch)

[2] Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No.2) [2004] 2 HKLRD 95

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd v. Chief Executive in Council and Others

[2004] 2 HKLRD 95

High Court CFI09 Mar 2004

Cited by 2 cases

Other judgments that cite this case

Xu Zhiqiang and Others v. Ng Kwok on and Others

High Court CFI09 Feb 2018

Tobii Technology Inc v. Hong Kong Team Light International Ltd and Another

High Court CFI12 May 2023