Acropolis Ltd v. W&Q Investment Ltd and Others

HCCW 218/2017

[2024] HKCFI 1645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING UP) PROCEEDINGS NO. 218 OF 2017

______________

______________

BETWEEN

______________

______________

DECISION

______________

1.Leave to appeal is refused.

2.The appeal has no prospect of success. The Former Provisional Liquidators are seeking to overturn findings of fact. There is nothing contradictory in the court’s findings of fact. The court’s conclusions follow from the findings of fact and fell squarely within the scope of the evidence adduced and the preliminary issues posed.

3.On the incidence of costs, the Petitioner and 14^th Respondent should have the costs of the leave to appeal application.

4.On quantum of costs, the Former Provisional Liquidators’ costs come to HK$74,498, while the costs of the Petitioner and 14^th Respondent come to HK$84,740. Both sides’ costs of the leave to appeal application should be roughly approximate. Nonetheless, although each side’s submissions should have entailed broadly similar amounts of work, the Former Provisional Liquidators as applicants will have incurred slightly more in costs in putting together the initial application for leave to appeal. It follows that the Petitioner and 14^th Respondent’s claimed costs are too high and should be reduced to $74,498. Given the slight disparity in amount of work just mentioned, the costs sought by the Petitioner and 14^th Respondent are further discounted to HK$70,000.

5.The Former Provisional Liquidators are to bear $70,000 of the costs of the Petitioner and 14^th Respondent in respect of the leave to appeal application.

Mr Jeff Yau, instructed by Titus, for the Petitioner and the 14^th Respondent

Mr Patrick Siu, instructed by Chow, Griffiths & Chan, for the former provisional liquidators of the 14^th Respondent