China Construction Bank (Asia) Corporation Ltd v. Klarenken Enterprise Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1515/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 December 2024.

1. For reasons set out in my Decision handed down on 31 October 2024 [1] , I dismissed D1 and D2’s appeal. Given the terms of the General Agreement and the 13/4/2017 Guarantee, I made an order nisi that D1 and D2 shall bear the costs of these appeals on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed. The costs order nisi has since become absolute.

Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases

Case No.HCA 1515/2023[2024] HKCFI 3636
Court
High Court CFI
Date20 Dec 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1515/2023

[2024] HKCFI 3636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1515 OF 2023

________________________

BETWEEN

  CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK (ASIA)  CORPORATION LIMITED
(中國建設銀行(亞洲)股份有限公司)
Plaintiff
  and
  KLARENKEN ENTERPRISE LIMITED
(嘉勤企業有限公司)
1st Defendant
  CHUNG KAM TONG CLARENCE (鍾金堂) 2nd Defendant
  TAM KA YEE CLARA (譚嘉怡) 3rd Defendant

________________________

Before:  Hon K Yeung J in Chambers
Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply by the Plaintiff: 21 November and
13 December 2024
Date of List of Objections by the 1st Defendant: 5 December 2024
Date of List of Objections by the 2nd Defendant: 6 December 2024
Date of Decision on Costs: 20 December 2024

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________


1.For reasons set out in my Decision handed down on 31 October 2024[1], I dismissed D1 and D2’s appeal. Given the terms of the General Agreement and the 13/4/2017 Guarantee, I made an order nisi that D1 and D2 shall bear the costs of these appeals on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed. The costs order nisi has since become absolute.

2.I have considered the Statement of Costs lodged by P, the Lists of Objections lodged separately by D1 and D2 (though the contents are materially the same), and P’s Reply.

3.Where costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis, all costs are to be allowed except those unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount, the receiving party being given the benefit of any doubt – Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, §62/App/11.  I have also considered David John Kennedy v Kelly Cheng [2012] 6 HKC 440 (and as summarised at Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025 §62/28/2).

4.The main thrust of D1 and D2’s objections is that the appeal was a rehearing, and that most work done for the hearing before Master Rita So could be reused.

5.I however accept P’s submissions that the emphasis of D1 and D2 cases as presented and pressed had changed.  In particular, during the appeal, the Discharge Defence was heavily relied upon. 

6.I have considered the Statement of Costs.  I have no basis to say that any of the costs were unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount.

7.I summarily assess the costs which D1 and D2 have to bear at HK$650,000.

(Keith Yeung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1515/2023