Read the full judgment text of FAMV 000024/2006 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 26 October 2006 before Mr Justice Chan Atg CJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.
Civil procedure – costs – jurisdiction to make costs order against non-party funder – High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) s 52A – whether court has jurisdiction to make costs order against person who, while party of record, was not party to applications giving rise to costs orders, on ground that such person funded those applications for own financial benefit – where jurisdiction exists, whether required to show funder funded litigation with view to becoming sole or substantial financial beneficiary – where funder is unsecured creditor funding litigation in name of company in liquidation to recover assets for benefit of all unsecured creditors, whether Companies Ordinance (Cap 32) s 265(5B) or underlying policy precludes costs order – leave to appeal granted on three questions of great general or public importance.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction to make costs order against non-party funder · Requirement for funder to be sole or substantial financial beneficiary · Effect of Companies Ordinance s 265(5B) on costs order against funder
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted to the plaintiff on three grounds of great general or public importance.