Dingway Investment Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) v. China City Construction & Development Co (Hong Kong) Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 309/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 January 2024.
1. I was surprised to learn about this application by Dingway and CCCI seeking an order for summary assessment of the costs ordered by this Court pursuant to its Decision dated 29 July 2022 ( [2022] HKCFI 2314 ) [1] . I am unable to agree with this application.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCA 309/2022 [2024] HKCFI 192 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 309 OF 2022 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ HCCW 30/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO 30 OF 2022 ________________________
________________________ BETWEEN
____________________ (Heard Together)
_________________ DECISION _________________ 1.I was surprised to learn about this application by Dingway and CCCI seeking an order for summary assessment of the costs ordered by this Court pursuant to its Decision dated 29 July 2022 ([2022] HKCFI 2314)[1]. I am unable to agree with this application. 2.First, as per §165 of the Decision, all costs orders were made on nisi basis. No application was made within 14 days to vary the orders pursuant to O 42, r 5B to allow for summary assessment. I therefore agree with Mr Fan, who appears for CCCDHK and Sze, that this Court is now functus and the costs orders are to be taxed in accordance with normal practice. 3.Second, I also agree with Mr Fan that the complexity of the costs orders militates against summary assessment. There were multiple applications before the Court and the costs of which had to be apportioned to reflect the results. It is undisputed that the costs incurred had overlapped between applications. A summary assessment, whilst efficient, may not do justice to the case. 4.I therefore dismiss this application, and I shall hear the parties on costs.
Mr CY Au of Tanner De Witt, for the Plaintiff in HCA 309/2022 and Petitioner in HCCW 30/2022 Mr Alex Fan, instructed by Jun He Law Offices, for the 1st and 3rd Defendants in HCA 309/2022 and for China City Construction & Development Co., (Hong Kong) Limited and Sze Wai Suen in HCCW 30/2022 Au-Yeung, Chan & Ho for the 2nd Defendant in HCA 309/2022 and Zeng Yuqi in HCCW 30/2022, absent Tung, Ng, Tse & Lam for the 6th Defendant in HCA 309/2022, absent Adrian Yeung & Cheng for the 7th and 9th Defendants in HCA 309/2022, absent |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 309/2022