Houtai Investment Holdings Ltd v. Leung Yat Tung and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1725/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 July 2021.

1. The Plaintiff in this case applied to vary the costs order nisi made in the Decision of this Court handed down on 27 May 2021, when the proceedings against the 4 th Defendant were stayed in favour of arbitration, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the Plaintiff and the 4 th Defendant. The Plaintiff’s action against the other Defendants was also stayed on these Defendants’ application for a case management stay, since this Court held that the Plaintiff’s clai

Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 1725/2019[2021] HKCFI 2165
Court
High Court CFI
Date23 Jul 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1725/2019

[2021] HKCFI 2165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1725 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

  HOUTAI INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  LEUNG YAT TUNG 1st Defendant
  LI KAM WA 2nd Defendant
  KWAN MAN KAM 3rd Defendant
  CROWN ASIA ENGINEERING LIMITED 4th Defendant
  KWAN TIM YAU 5th Defendant
  RICHWAY LEGEND LIMITED 6th Defendant
  CHAN YICK CHEONG 7th Defendant
  LIU CHEUK LIM 8th Defendant

________________________

Before:  Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers

Dates of Written Submissions:  16, 23 and 24 June 2021

Date of Decision:  23 July 2021

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________


1.The Plaintiff in this case applied to vary the costs order nisi made in the Decision of this Court handed down on 27 May 2021, when the proceedings against the 4th Defendant were stayed in favour of arbitration, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the Plaintiff and the 4th Defendant. The Plaintiff’s action against the other Defendants was also stayed on these Defendants’ application for a case management stay, since this Court held that the Plaintiff’s claims against them are dependent and contingent upon the existence of a binding lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the 4th Defendant, and there is overlap in the factual issues for determination in the Plaintiff’s claims against the 4th Defendant and the other Defendants.

2.Having considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties, I am prepared, in the exercise of my discretion on costs, to vary the costs order nisi, to the effect that the Plaintiff is to pay the costs of the summons for stay on party and party basis. This is upon consideration given to the fact that there was no arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and these Defendants, which is one matter relevant to the exercise of the Court’s discretion to order indemnity costs.

3.The costs of the application for variation are in the cause of the action.

  (Mimmie Chan)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Vincent Lam, Mr Kurt Ng and Mr Ben Chan, instructed by Siao, Wen and Leung, for the plaintiff

Mr Joseph Wong, instructed by Poon & Cheung, for the 1st to 3rd and 5th to 8th defendants