Man Tai Sang and Others v. Man Shek Tong and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2232/2014 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 November 2017.
1. On 21 May 2015, Deputy Judge Kent Yee made an order in the present proceedings varying an undertaking of the defendants to provide for the amount of legal costs for HCA 881/2012 to be approved by the court. Otherwise, the undertakings were to restrain the defendants from dealing with the bank accounts of the Tso.
Cites 1 case
|
HCA 2232/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2232 OF 2014 ____________
____________ Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 24 November 2017 Date of Decision: 24 November 2017 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 21 May 2015, Deputy Judge Kent Yee made an order in the present proceedings varying an undertaking of the defendants to provide for the amount of legal costs for HCA 881/2012 to be approved by the court. Otherwise, the undertakings were to restrain the defendants from dealing with the bank accounts of the Tso. 2.The summons before me is taken out by the defendants in their personal capacity to seek a sum of $965,000 for the legal costs of the Tso in HCA 881/2012. The trial of that case is due to start on 5 December 2017, in less than two weeks’ time. 3.The present application faces procedural defect. The defendants in the present case are being sued in their personal capacity. This application is made on behalf of the Tso but the Tso is not before the court. In addition, it appears that the proper procedure ought to be for the Tso, through its managers, to apply for legal costs out of the Tso by way of a Beddoe application. This procedure is not followed in today’s application. 4.There are certain other matters on the merits of the application pointed out by Mr Koo, counsel for the plaintiffs, in this case. However, the plaintiffs are not representing the Tso although they are beneficiaries of the Tso. I make no comment on the merits of this application, but for the failure to follow the Beddoe procedure, it is not appropriate for the court at this stage to allow withdrawal of close to a million dollars for a piece of litigation involving the Tso. 5.I therefore dismiss the present summons. But this is without prejudice to the Tso and/or the defendants, if appropriate, to make the proper application for payment out from the Tso’s assets for the legal costs for HCA 881/2012. (Submissions on costs) 6.Costs are summarily assessed at $110,000, to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Mr Ernest Koo and Mr Jay Cheung, instructed by Christine M Koo & Ip, Solicitors & Notaries LLP, for the plaintiffs Mr Anthony Cheung, instructed by K M Cheung & Co, for the defendants | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment