China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Ltd (in Liquidation) and Another v. Ubs Ag and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1348/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 October 2022.

1. I have some misgivings about the application of the slip rule for today’s purposes. The costs order which this court made in the Decision dated 20 July 2022 was one after having invited Senior Counsel to address the particular issue. According to the notes of the Plaintiffs’ solicitors, which are agreed by the 1 st Defendant and accords with the recollection of this court, the submissions made only concerned whether costs should follow the event. Further, I accept the submissions made on beha

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 1348/2019[2022] HKCFI 3786
Court
High Court CFI
Date13 Oct 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1348/2019

[2022] HKCFI 3786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1348 OF 2019

____________________

BETWEEN

  CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) 1st Plaintiff
  COSIMO BORRELLI AND CHI LAI MAN JOCELYN IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and  
  UBS AG 1st Defendant
  UBS EUROPE SE (FORMERLY TRADING AS UBS LIMITED) 2nd Defendant

____________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 13 October 2022
Date of Decision: 13 October 2022

________________

DECISION

________________

1.I have some misgivings about the application of the slip rule for today’s purposes. The costs order which this court made in the Decision dated 20 July 2022 was one after having invited Senior Counsel to address the particular issue. According to the notes of the Plaintiffs’ solicitors, which are agreed by the 1st Defendant and accords with the recollection of this court, the submissions made only concerned whether costs should follow the event. Further, I accept the submissions made on behalf of the Plaintiffs that it is not always the case that the costs of the claims which have been struck out should be awarded against the parties whose claims were struck out.

2.As regards the immediate taxation of the costs of the application, it was not sought in the submissions made before the court. As I said, I am not entirely comfortable with the proposition that it was a matter which had been accidentally omitted by the court.

3.I have considered carefully the submissions made by both sides. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the court to exercise its discretion and revisit the costs order which had been made. This is regardless of whether the slip rule can be properly applied. For these reasons, I dismiss the application.

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

Mr Kevin Kee of Karas LLP, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs

Mr Peter Ng of Herbert Smith Freehills, for the 1st Defendant