Re Bga Holdings Ltd (Formerly Known As Beibu Gulf Ocean Shipping (Group) Ltd)

CAMP 44/2024, [2025] HKCA 1027

On Appeal from [2024] HKCFI 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 44 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 251/2019)

___________________

___________________

___________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

The Court:

1.This Court handed down a Judgment on 26 September 2025 in relation to a renewed application for leave to appeal by Bright Good Asia Limited and Polyrise Team Limited (“2 Contributories”) against the Order of Anthony Chan J dated 3 January 2024 (“Leave Application”). The application was opposed by the Petitioner in these proceedings.

2.At paragraph 89, we dismissed the Leave Application.

3.At paragraph 91, we ordered costs be to the Petitioner to be summarily assessed if not agreed and paid forthwith by the 2 Contributories.

4.The parties had previously been notified that Judgment would be ready for handing down on or before 30 September 2025.

5.Without prior permission of the Court as required by PD 4.1 paragraph 15, on 28 August 2025, the 2 Contributories filed a Summons dated 27 August 2025 seeking leave to adduce further evidence on questions of fact as per the 1^st Affirmation of Chan Yeuk Shing Yoki dated 27 August 2025 in support of the Leave Application (“New Evidence Application”). It was only by letter dated 15 September 2025 that the 2 Contributories formally sought permission of the Court to file the Summons and the 1^st Affirmation of Chan Yeuk Shing Yoki. We refused permission and by letter dated 26 September 2025 notified the 2 Contributories of the same.

6.The Petitioner has filed a Statement of costs for the Leave Application dated 25 March 2024 for $209,120 and a Supplemental Statement of Costs for the New Evidence Application dated 8 October 2025 for $214,590.

7.The 2 Contributories have filed 1 Statement of Opposition each, dated 9 and 24 October 2025 respectively, to the Petitioner’s Statement of Costs and Supplemental Statement of Costs counter-proposing that the Petitioner’s costs be reduced to $103,260 and $17,590 / $45,440.

8.Having considered inter alia the work done by the Petitioner, the lateness of the New Evidence Application, relatively uncomplicated though it may be, and the urgency that it created, as well as the grounds of objection of the 2 Contributories, especially the duplication of manpower on the part of the Petitioner in relation to the New Evidence Application, we summarily assessed the Petitioner’s costs as follows:

(1)  For the Leave Application: $157,000.

(2)  For the New Evidence Application: $107,295.

Au & Associates, for the Contributories

Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong, for the Petitioner