Lo Kai Shui v. Hsbc International Trustee Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 404/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 23 May 2022.
1. By summons dated 12 January 2022 (the “ Leave Summons ”), the plaintiff applies for leave to appeal against this court’s decision on costs dated 29 December 2021 (the “ Decision ”) in respect of 5 summonses (collectively, the “ Summonses ”) as between the plaintiff, the 1 st defendant and the 2 nd defendant.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 404/2018 [2022] HKCFI 1508 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 404 OF 2018 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon Wilson Chan J in Chambers Date of last written submissions on leave to appeal: 25 March 2022 Date of Decision: 23 May 2022 ________________________ DECISION ON LEAVE TO APPEAL ________________________ 1.By summons dated 12 January 2022 (the “Leave Summons”), the plaintiff applies for leave to appeal against this court’s decision on costs dated 29 December 2021 (the “Decision”) in respect of 5 summonses (collectively, the “Summonses”) as between the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. 2.It is not in dispute that in order to be granted leave, the plaintiff must satisfy the court that he has reasonable prospect of showing on appeal that this court either erred in principle or exercised its discretion in a manner which was plainly wrong. 3.In my view, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this court has committed any error of principles or is plainly wrong in exercising its discretion. In short, the plaintiff’s proposed grounds of appeal are no more than a rehash of the rejected arguments, and his application for leave must be dismissed. 4.As regard the 1st defendant, the procedural history leading to the resolution of the Summonses has been set out in paragraphs 3 to 22 of the Decision. 5.From the procedural history, I came to the conclusion that the core dispute between the parties was whether the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the use of the Recording and the Transcript not just for the purposes of the 1st defendant’s strike-out application, but also at trial and more generally in these proceedings. This core dispute was ultimately resolved in the 1st defendant’s favour. In the circumstances, the plaintiff should pay the 1st defendant’s costs as (a) the plaintiff was not the “effective winner”, and (b) the plaintiff’s conduct was unreasonable, resulting in substantial wastage of time and costs. 6.As regard the 2nd defendant, the relevant background has been set out in paragraphs 24 to 29 of the Decision. 7.As submitted by the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant’s initial refusal to provide the Confirmation was reasonable because:
8.The 2nd defendant eventually provided the Confirmation on 14 September 2020 by way of an affirmation after reviewing the plaintiff’s evidence filed on 11 September 2020. 9.For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the intended appeal by the plaintiff has a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, I order that the Leave Summons be dismissed. 10.Further, I order that the plaintiff do pay forthwith the costs of the Leave Summons to respectively the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant (with a Certificate for 2 Counsel for the 1st defendant), such costs are to be taxed on the party and party basis if not agreed. In all the circumstances, I do not consider it “appropriate” to award indemnity costs against the plaintiff.
Written submissions by Mr Andrew Lynn, instructed by Messrs Cocking & Co LLP, for the plaintiff Written submissions by Mr Eugene Fung, SC, leading Mr Joshua Chan, instructed by Messrs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for the 1st defendant Written submissions by Ms Elizabeth Cheung, instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith Freehills, for the 2nd defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 404/2018