Joint Liquidators of Hsin Chong Group Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) and Others v. Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm)

HCMP 260/2021

[2024] HKCFI 1785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 260 OF 2021

_______________

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

_________________________________

DECISION

_________________________________

1.This is my decision on the Applicants’ summons dated 19 April 2024 (“Summons”) for leave to amend an order dated 7 February 2024 made by DHCJ Roxanne Ismail SC (“Order”).

2.The present proceedings were heard by the learned Deputy Judge on 6 and 7 December 2023, and she handed down her decision on 15 December 2023 (“Decision”).

3.Decision §80 is a costs order nisi (“Nisi Order”) which reads as follows:

“ PwC [the Respondent] to pay the JLs [the Applicants] the costs of and incidental to the OS save that it only pay [sic] 50% of the costs of an incidental to the preparation of [an identified affirmation]; such costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for 2 counsel.”

4.The Order was made following an application to vary the Nisi Order. It reads:

“ [1] PwC to pay JLs the costs of and incidental to the Originating Summons save that (i) it only pays 50% of the costs of and incidental to the preparation of [the identified affirmation] and (ii) that there be no order as to costs in respect of the preparation of [another identified affirmation].

[2] No order as to costs is made in respect of this the Application.”

5.By the Summons, the Applicants seek leave to amend the Order. They seek to (1) include an order for taxation (in the absence of agreement) with certificate for 2 counsel to Order §1, as in the Nisi Order and (2) delete the superfluous “this” at Order §2.

6.The Summons is not opposed by the Official Receiver or the Respondent.

7.In my view, the proposed amendments to Order §1 and Order §2 are respectively an accidental slip and/or a clerical mistake falling within the rubric of RHC Order 20, rule 11.

8.I will therefore make an order in terms of the Summons §§1 and 2. Although the Respondent does not substantively oppose the Summons, there appeared to be some concern on its part on the costs order sought at Summons §2. Out of an abundance of caution, the order which I make in respect of Summons §2 is on a nisi basis and will become absolute within 14 days absent an application to vary the same.

Messrs DeHeng Law Office (Hong Kong) LLP, for the 1^st to 3^rd Applicants

Messrs Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, for the Respondent