Chung Pui Tak and Another v. Tam Chi Leung Nolan and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1439/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 February 2023.
1. On 30 September 2022, this court handed down the decision (“the Decision”) in respect of the plaintiffs’ application for mareva injunction against the 1 st defendant (“D1”). Pursuant to that, the parties have lodged their respective written submissions on costs.
Cited by 9 cases
|
HCA 1439/2012 [2023] HKCFI 325 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 1439 OF 2012 ________________
________________
_____________________________ D E C I S I O N O N C O S T S _____________________________ 1.On 30 September 2022, this court handed down the decision (“the Decision”) in respect of the plaintiffs’ application for mareva injunction against the 1st defendant (“D1”). Pursuant to that, the parties have lodged their respective written submissions on costs. 2.The Decision refers, specifically §37 thereof whereby this court observed that the application could have been resolved by November 2021 without substantive argument. The parties are ad idem that the dividing line starts with the letter from D1 dated 7 October 2021 (“the Letter”). 3.The consideration of the submissions does not alter this court’s preliminary observation stated in §37 of the Decision. 4.In particular, D1’s offer in the Letter was put forward regardless of the merits of his resistance to the plaintiffs’ application. Argument would have been saved, if the application could be resolved on terms agreed between the parties. 5.After exchange between the parties since the Letter, D1 agreed by letter dated 15 October 2021 to provide the undertaking. 6.The argument in respect of the Disputed Term, as this court ruled in paragraphs 30-31 of the Decision, turned out to be against the plaintiffs. 7.The plaintiffs also lost in their attempt to invoke the Chabra jurisdiction of the court. 8.D1 did not change his position in respect of his undertaking at the hearing. 9.The complexity of the case lies with the dispute and terms of the judgment for adjudication, but not the plaintiffs’ application for mareva injunction with reference to such adjudication. 10.In the premises:
Written submissions by Mr Simon Chiu, instructed by Kam & Fan, for the plaintiffs Written submissions by Ms Mandy Yau, instructed by Philip Tam & Co, for the 1st defendant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1439/2012